''';."■''" 



Wm 



mm 

Hi 



€1 



■hIII11 

■HHH 



■HI 






Hi 



drag 
np 



HUB 




it 



Sit 



_JHHI._. 

wmwMm 




■1RN 



HP 



HsSiffi 




Class 2Z2AZ3. 
Book Ml* 



Copyright N°- 



<^o 



?y<L 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



THE PORTRAITS 



OF 



SHAKESPEARE 



Edition Five Hundred Copies. 



No. 



/p 



THE 



PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 



BY 



J. PARKER NORRIS 



"Look here, upon this picture, and on this." — Hamlet, III, iv, 53 



PHILADELPHIA 

ROBERT M. LINDSAY 

1885 




COPYRIGHT 1885 BY J. PARKER NORRIS 



Press of Globe Printing House 
Philadelphia 



copv 7, 



TO 



HORACE HOWARD FURNESS, Ph.D., LL.D. 



THIS BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED 



BY HIS FRIEND 



J. PARKER NORMS 



PREFACE. 



THE list of books consulted in the preparation of 
this volume will give a fair idea of the mass of 
literature which has accumulated around the portraits 
of Shakespeare. Three books, however, stand promi- 
nently forth — Boaden's Inquiry, 1824, Wivell's Inquiry, 
1827, and Friswell's Life Portraits, 1864. 

The excellence of Boaden's work is marred by its 
diffuse style. He seems to have endeavored to fill 
out his book by the insertion of matter which is foreign 
to his subject, and even in the discussion of the traits 
of a portrait his many words obscure his meaning. 

Wivell's book is a literary curiosity. He was evi- 
dently a wholly uneducated man, and his style is tur- 
gid in the extreme. He reprinted much of Boaden's 
material, but he also added interesting descriptions of 
portraits passed over by his predecessor. He was un- 
tiring in his labors, and had the advantage, withal, of 



Vlll PREFACE. 

being himself a portrait painter. Doubtless had he 
been able to endow his purposes with words his work 
would have been peculiarly valuable. 

Friswell had the advantage of the labors of Boaden 
and Wivell, and of new material which had come to 
light since their day. His book unfortunately bears 
evidence of hasty preparation, and contains numerous 
errors revealing the lack of thorough study. 

While thus discussing his predecessors who have so 
bravely tried to knit into one fair pattern the ravelled 
sleeve gathered from many hands, let not ingratitude 
be imputed to the present writer. He has often had 
occasion to avail himself of their labors, and care has 
always been taken to duly acknowledge the debt. 
Every available source of information has been 
searched, and whatsoever is known on this subject is 
here presented. All that is claimed for this work is a 
careful collection of all information from every source. 

The pleasant duty remains of acknowledging the as- 
sistance which has been extended to him by George 
Adam Burn, Esq., Horace Howard Furness, Ph.D., 
LL.D., C. M. Ingleby, LL.D., Gen. Charles K. Loring, 
Isaac Norris, M.D., John Rabone, Esq., Albert H. 
Smyth, Esq., and Samuel Timmins, Esq., J. P., to all 
of whom he is very grateful. 






CONTENTS. 



Shall we open Shakespeare's Grave? A Plea for 

ascertaining the true likeness of the poet . i 

The Stratford Bust 21 

The Droeshout Engraving 45 

The Chandos Portrait 67 

The Death Mask 93 

The Jansen Portrait 122 

The Felton Portrait 141 

The Stratford Portrait 153 

The Ashborne Portrait 166 

The Duke of Devonshire Bust . . . . 172 

The Hampton Court Portrait 179 

The Hilliard Miniature 182 

The Warwick Portrait . . ; . . .187 

The Jennings Miniature 189 

The Burn Portrait 191 

The Lumley Portrait 192 

The Boston Art Museum Portrait . . . .196 

The Challis Portrait 199 



X 



CONTENTS. 



The Zoust Portrait .... 

The Zucchero Portrait 

The Boardman Miniature . 

The Stace Portrait .... 

The O'Connell Portrait 

The Gilliland Portrait 

The Hardie Portrait 

The Liddell Portrait .... 

The Dunford Portrait 

The Winstanley Portrait 

The Zincke Portrait 

The Talma Portrait .... 

The Monument in Westminster Abbey 

The Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo 

The Roubiliac Statue 

The Ward Statue .... 



20 1 
204 
206 
208 
210 
211 
213 
215 
218 
224 
226 
228 
230 
232 
234 
235 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 



PAGE 

Page's Bust. From Crayon Drawing of original. . 

FRONTISPIECE. 

The Stratford Bust. From Photograph of original 

by Thrupp. (Large view.) 21 

The Stratford Bust. From Photograph of original 
by Thrupp. (Smaller view, showing the whole 
monument.) 27 

The Stratford Bust. From Photograph of original. 37 

The Droeshout Engraving. From Photo-lithograph 
of original by Day & Son, from the Earl of 
Ellesmere's copy 45 

The Title-page of the First Folio edition of 
Shakespeare, showing the manner in which the 
Droeshout Engraving appeared in that volume. 47 

Marshall's copy of the Droeshout Engraving. From 

an old print (engraver's name unknown.) . . 59 

The Chandos Portrait. From Mezzotint by Samuel 

Cousins 67 

The Death Mask. From Photograph of original 

by William Page. (Profile.) .... 93 



Xll LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 

The Death Mask. From Photograph of original 

by William Page. (Three-quarter face view.) 95 

The Death Mask. From Photographs of original. 
(Four small views, showing the Mask in differ- 
ent positions.) 97 

The Kesselstadt Picture. From Photograph of 

original. 99 

The Jansen Portrait. From Mezzotint by Charles 

Turner. 123 

The Felton Portrait. From Engraving by T. 
Trotter. (The small square shows the actual 
condition of the picture. The portion of the 
plate in outline is supplied from the droes- 
hout Engraving.) 141 

The Felton Portrait. From Engraving by T. Trot- 
ter. (The dress restored from the Droeshout 
Engraving.) . . 145 

The Stratford Portrait. From Photograph of 

original by Cundall, Downes, & Co. . . 153 

The Stratford Portrait. From Photograph of 

original. ........ 163 

The Ashborne Portrait. From Mezzotint by G. F. 

Storm 167 

The Duke of Devonshire Bust. From Photograph 

of original 173 

The Hilliard Miniature. From Engraving by T. 

W. Harland. ....... 183 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Xlll 

The Jennings Miniature. From Engraving by W. 

HOLL I89 

The Burn Portrait. From Photograph of original. 191 
The Boston Art Museum Portrait. From Photo- 
graph of original by Sonrel. . . . .197 
The Zoust Portrait. From Engraving by W. Holl. 201 
The Zucchero Portrait. From Engraving by W. 

Holl 205 

The Stace Portrait. From Engraving by W. Holl. 209 
The Gilliland Portrait. From Engraving by W. 

Holl. 211 

The Dunford Portrait. From Engraving by W. 

Sharp 219 

The Zincke Portrait. From Engraving by W. Holl. 227 
The Monument in Westminster Abbey. From En- 
graving by B. Holl 231 

The Shakespeare Gallery Alto-Relievo. From 

Engraving by B. Holl. 233 

The Roubiliac Statue. From Engraving by W. 

Holl 234 

The Ward Statue. From Photograph of original 

by Rockwood. 235 



LIST OF BOOKS, MAGAZINE AND NEWSPAPER 
ARTICLES, ETC., CONSULTED IN THE PRE- 
PARATION OF THIS VOLUME. 



[Jennens, Charles :] The Tragedy of King Lear, as lately pub- 
lished, Vindicated from the Abuse of the Critical Re- 
viewers; and the Wonderful Genius and Abilities of those 
Gentlemen for Criticism, set forth, celebrated, and ex- 
tolled, by the Editor of King Lear. 8vo. London: 
1772. 

[Steevens, George:] Proposals by William Richardson, Print- 
seller, etc., for the publication of the Felton Portrait of 
Shakespeare. With Supplement. 8vo. London: 1794. 

[Britton, John :] Remarks on the Monumental Bust of Shake- 
speare, at Stratford-upon-Avon, etc. 8vo. London: 
1816. 

Boaden, James : An Inquiry into the Authenticity of various 
Pictures and Prints, which, from the decease of the Poet 
to our own times, have been offered to the public as por- 
traits of Shakespeare, etc. 8vo. London: 1824. 

(XV) 



XVI LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. 

Boaden, James: An Inquiry into the Authenticity of various 
Pictures and Prints, which, from the decease of the Poet 
to our own times, have been offered to the public as por- 
traits of Shakespeare, etc. [This is sometimes called a 
large paper edition of the former book, but it is not, for 
the type is entirely reset, and the page made a quarto 
thereby — not by merely adding margin as in large paper 
copies. The illustrations are the same as in the former, 
but are India paper proofs.] 4to. London: 1824. 

Wivell, Abraham : An Historical Account of the Monumental 
Bust of William Shakespeare, in the Chancel of the 
Church, at Stratford-upon-Avon, etc. 8vo. London: 
1827. 

Wivell, Abraham: An Inquiry into the History, Authentic- 
ity, and Characteristics of the Shakespeare Portraits, etc. 
8vo. London: 1827. 

Wivell, Abraham : A Supplement to an Inquiry into the His- 
tory, Authenticity, and Characteristics of the Shakespeare 
Portraits, etc. 8vo. London: 1827. 

[Wilson, John :] Shakespeariana. Catalogue of all the books, 
pamphlets, etc., relating to Shakespeare, etc. i6mo. 
London: 1827. 

Wivell, Abraham: An Inquiry into the History, Authentic- 
ity, and Characteristics of the Shakespeare Portraits, etc. 
8vo. London: 1840. 



LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XV11 

Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : The Life of William Shake- 
speare. 8vo. London: 1848. 

Walpole, Horace: Anecdotes of Painting. Edited by Ralph 
N. Wornum. 8vo. London: 1849. 

Forster, Henry Rumsey: A Few Remarks by Henry Rum- 
sey Forster on the Chandos Portrait of Shakespeare, etc. 
[Privately printed.] 8vo. London: 1849. 

Anonymous: The Chandos Portrait of Shakespeare. [Appar- 
ently a privately issued reprint of articles on the Chan- 
dos Portrait contributed to The Athenceum and The Liter- 
ary Gazette. It has no title-page, or date of publication.] 
8vo. [London: 1849?] 

Britton, John: Appendix to Britton's Auto-Biography, etc. 
8vo. London: 1850. 

Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : The Works of William Shake- 
speare. [Folio Edition. Vol. I. One hundred and fifty 
copies printed.] Folio. London: 1853. 

Waagen, Gustav Friedrich: Treasures of Art in Great Britain. 
Vol. III. 8vo. London: 1854. 

Wright, Charles: The Stratford Portrait of Shakespeare, and 
The Athenceum, etc. [No title-page.] 8vo. London: 
1 861. 



XV111 LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. 

Wright, Charles: The Stratford Portrait of Shakespeare. 
Copies of Communications to The Times, etc. [No title- 
page.] London: 1861. 

Wright, Charles : Shakespeare and Ben Jonson, etc. [No 
title-page. Privately printed.] 8vo. London: 1861. 

Bohn, Henry G. : Lowndes' Bibliographer's Manual, etc. i2mo. 
London: 1863. 

Anonymous : Shakespeare Portraits. [In The Leisure Hour for 
April 23, 1864.] Royal 8vo. London: 1864. 

Thoms, William J. : The Stratford Bust of Shakespeare. [In 
Notes and Queries for March 19, 1864.] 4to. London: 
1864. 

Scharf, George: On the Principal Portraits of Shakespeare. 
[In Notes and Queries for April 23, 1864.] London: 
1864. 

Neil, Samuel: Jonson's Lines on Shakespeare's Portrait. [In 
Notes and Queries for April 23, 1864.] London: 1864. 

Thoms, William J. : The Kesselstadt Mask of Shakespeare. 
[In Notes and Queries for April 23, 1864.] London: 
1864. 

Anonymous: Shakespeare's Portraits. [In Notes and Queries 
for May 21, 1864.] London: 1864. 






LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XIX 

Scharf, George: On the Principal Portraits of Shakespeare. 
[Reprinted from Notes and Queries^ 32mo. London: 
1864. 

Friswell, J. Hain : Life Portraits of William Shakespeare, etc. 
8vo. London: 1864. 

Craig, E. T. : The Portraits, Bust, and Monument of Shake- 
speare. [Part II. of this work is entitled: Shakespeare : 
or the Ardens of Warwickshire , and the HeiHtage of 
Genius.'] i6mo. London: [1864?] 

Anonymous : Catalogue of Pictures and Drawings exhibited at 
the Town Hall, Stratford-upon-Avon, at the celebration 
of the Tercentenary Birthday of William Shakespeare. 
i6mo. London: 1864. 

Harrison, Gabriel: The Stratford Bust of William Shake- 
speare, etc. [Privately printed.] 4to. Brooklyn: 1865. 

Elze, K. : Shakespeare's Portraits. [In Jahrbuch of German 
Shakespeare Society for 1867.] 8vo. Berlin: 1867. 

Grimm, Hermann: Shakespeare's Todtenmaske. [In Uber 
Kunstler und KunstwerkeT] 8vo. Berlin : 1 867. 

Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : A Catalogue of a small portion 
of the Engravings and Drawings Illustrative of the Life 
of Shakespeare, preserved in the collection formed by J. 
O. Halliwell, Esq., F.R.S., etc. [Privately printed.] 8vo. 
London: 1868. 



XX LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. 

Carter, Susan Nichols : The President of the National Acad- 
emy. [A sketch of William Page, and an account of his 
copy from the Death Mask. In Appleton's Journal for 
December 2, 1871.] New York: 1871. 

Stoddard, R. H. : Shakespeare Portraits. [In The Aldine for 
May, 1872.] New York: 1872. 

Anonymous : Ward's Statue of Shakespeare. [In Atlantic Monthly 
for September, 1872.] Boston: 1872. 

Holder, H. W. : The Marriage of Shakespeare. [Reprinted 
from The Scarborough Gazette, 1 873.] 8vo. Scar- 
borough: 1873. 

Wright, H. : Shakespeare's Portraits. [In The Antiquary for 
November 8, 1873.] London: 1873. 

Malam, John: The Shakespeare Marriage Picture, etc. i6mo. 
London: 1873. 

Anonymous: Shakespeare's Death Mask. [In The New York 
Herald for November 10, 1873.] New York: 1873. 

Anonymous : The Face of Shakespeare. [In Evening Post for 
November 15, 1873.] New York: 1873. 

Norris, J. Parker: The Various Portraits of Shakespeare. 
[In The Evening Telegraph for November 17, 1873.] 
Philadelphia: 1873. 



LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XXI 

Anonymous : Mr. Page on Shakespeare. [In The Evening Post.~] 
New York: 1873. 

Anonymous: The Portraits of Shakespeare. [In The Chronicle 
for November 19, 1873.] Germantown: 1873. 

Anonymous: Mr. Page's Mask of Shakespeare. [In The New 
York Tribune for November 28, 1873.] New York: 
1873- 

Anonymous: Shakespeare. Ward's Statue in Central Park. 
[Privately printed.] Royal 8vo. New York: 1873. 

O' Donovan, William R. : A Statue of Shakespeare. [In 
Lippincotfs Magazine for January, 1874.] Philadelphia: 
1874. 

Gray, Charles G. : Shakespeare's Scar. [In The New York 
Tribune, May, 1874.] New York : 1874. 

Anonymous : Evidence for the Existence of the Scar. [In The 
New York Tribune, May, 1874.] New York: 1874. 

Anonymous : Pictures at the Academy. [In The Home Journal 
for May 20, 1874.] New York: 1874. 

Anonymous: The Death Mask of Shakespeare. [In The Sunday 
Dispatch for June 21, 1874.] Philadelphia: 1 874. 

Hart, John S. : The Shakespeare Death Mask. [In Scribner's 
Monthly for July, 1874.] New York: 1874. 



XX11 LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. 

Anonymous: The Death Mask. [In The Morning Advertiser 
for July II, 1874.] London: 1874. 

Anonymous: The Death Mask. [In The Nation, August, 
1874.] New York: 1874. 

Anonymous : The Death Mask of Shakespeare. [In The New 
York Herald for September 28, 187 4.] New York: 1874. 

Anonymous: The Shakespearian Portraits. Opinions of Scholars 
upon the celebrated Death Mask, etc. [In The New York 
Herald for September 28, 1874.] New York: 1874. 

Anonymous: The Mask of Shakespeare. [In The New York 
Tribune for November 15, 1874.] New York: 1874. 

Anonymous: The Lumley Portrait of Shakespeare. [No title- 
page.] 8vo. London: 1874. 

Craig, E. T. : Shakespeare's Portraits Phrenologically Consid- 
ered. [Originally published in an English journal April 
30, 1864, and now privately reprinted.] 8vo. Philadel- 
phia: 1875. 

Norris, J. Parker: The Death Mask. [In the American Biblio- 
polist for February, 1875.] New York: 1875. 

Timmins, Samuel: The Lumley Portrait. [In The American 
Bibliopolist for June, 1875.] New York: 1875. 



LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XX111 

Cosens, F. W. : The Felton Portrait. [In The American Biblio- 
polist for August, 1875.] New York: 1875. 

Page, William : A Study of Shakespeare's Portraits. [In Scrib- 
ner's Monthly for September, 1875.] New York: 1875. 

Norris, J. Parker : Page's Bust. [In The American Bibliopolist 
for October, 1875.] New York: 1875. 

Schaaffhausen, Hermann: Ueber die Todtenmaske Shake- 
speare's. [In Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesell- 
schaft for 187 5.] 8vo. Weimar: 1875. 

Ingleby, C. M. : The Portraiture of Shakespeare. [Ten copies 
of Chapter V, of Dr. C. M. Ingleby's Shakespeare : the 
Man, and the Book were struck off, for private circulation, 
before the publication of that work, under the above title. 
It is slightly different from the same chapter in that book.] 
4to. London: 1876. 

Norris, J. Parker : Opening Shakespeare's Grave. [In Ameri- 
can Bibliopolist for April, 1876. The first proposal to 
open Shakespeare's grave.] 8vo. New York: 1876. 

Norris, J. Parker: Opening Shakespeare's Grave. [In The 
Press for August 4, 1876. A reprint of the proposal to 
open Shakespeare's grave, from American Bibliopolist for 
April, 1876.] Philadelphia: 1876. 

Anonymous : Shakespeare's Carte de Visite. [In The Daily Mail 
for August 23, 1876.] Birmingham: 1876. 



XXIV LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. 

Anonymous : Opening of Shakespeare's Grave. [In Daily Tele- 
graph for August 24, 1876.] London: 1876. 

Page, William : A Study of Shakespeare's Portraits. [Privately 
reprinted from Mr. Page's paper in Scribner's Monthly for 
September, 1875.] 32mo. London: 1876. 

Winsor, Justin : A Bibliography of the Original Quartos and 
Folios of Shakespeare, etc. [Two hundred and fifty 
copies printed.] Folio. Boston: 1876. 

Page, William : A Study of Shakespeare's Portraits. [Reprinted 
from Mr. Page's paper in Scribner's Monthly for Septem- 
ber, 1875.] 8vo. New York: 1877. 

Ingleby, C. M.: Shakespeare: the Man, and the Book. 4to. 
London: 1877. 

Anonymous : Opening of Shakespeare's Grave. [In The Nation 
for May 21, 1878.] New York: 1878. 

Norris, J. Parker: A Bibliography of Works on the Portraits 
of Shakespeare. [Privately printed.] 8vo. Philadel- 
phia: 1879. 

Gower, Ronald: The Shakespeare Death Mask. [In The 
Antiquary for August, 1880.] London: 1880. 

Ingleby, C. M. : The Kesselstadt Miniature. [In The Antiquary 
for September, 1880.] London: 1880. 



LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XXV 

Anonymous: Excavations in the Church and Churchyard of 
Stratford-upon-Avon. [In Birmingham Daily Gazette for 
December 17, 1880.] Birmingham: 1880. 

Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : Outlines of the Life of Shake- 
speare. 8vo. Brighton: 188 1. 

Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : Outlines of the Life of Shake- 
speare. Second Edition. 8vo. London: 1882. 

Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : Outlines of the Life of Shake- 
speare. Third Edition. 8vo. London: 1883. 

Ingleby, C. M. : Shakespeare's Bones. 4to. London: 1883. 

[Timmins, Samuel:] Shakespeare's Bones. [A Review of Dr. 
Ingleby's work entitled Shakespeare 's Bones. In Birming- 
ham Daily Post for August 15, 1883.] Birmingham: 
1883. 

Anonymous : Shakespeare's Bones. [In The Daily Mail for Au- 
gust 16, 1883.] Birmingham: 1883. 

Anonymous: Shakespeare's Bones. [In The Stratford-upon- 
Avon Herald lor August 17, 1883. Stratford-upon-Avon: 
1883. 

Anonymous: Opening Shakespeare's Grave. [In The Daily 
Telegraph for September 3, 1883.] London: 1883. 

Anonymous: Opening Shakespeare's Grave. [In The Standard 
for September 3, 1883.] London: 1883. 



XXVI LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. 

Anonymous: Opening Shakespeare's Grave. [In The Morning 
Post for September 3, 1883.] London: 1883. 

Anonymous: The Proposed Disinterment of Shakespeare's Re- 
mains. [In The Daily Mail for September 4, 1883.] 
Birmingham: 1883. 

Anonymous : The Proposed Vandalism at Shakespeare's Grave. 
[In Birmingham Daily Gazette for September 4, 1883.J 
Birmingham: 1883. 

Anonymous: The Proposal to Open Shakespeare's Tomb. [In 
Birmingham Daily Gazette for September 5, 1883.] Bir- 
mingham: 1883. 

Anonymous: The Proposed Exhumation of Shakespeare's Re- 
mains. [In The Stratford-upon-Avon Herald for Septem- 
ber 7, 1883.] Stratford-upon-Avon: 1883. 

Anonymous: The Proposed Opening of Shakespeare's Tomb. 
[In Birmingham Weekly Post for September 8, 1883.] 
Birmingham: 1883. 

Sala, George Augustus : Shakespeare's Bones. [In Illustrated 
London News for September 8, 1883.] London: 1883. 

[Betty, Edward:] Shakespeare's Skull. [In Commercial Ga- 
zette for September 23, 1883.] Cincinnati: 1883. 

[Betty, Edward:] Mortal Remains of Shakespeare. [In Com- 
mercial Gazette for October, 1883.] Cincinnati: 1883. 



LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XXV11 

Norris, J. Parker : The Portraits of Shakespeare. [In Shake- 
speariana from November, 1883, to September, 1884, both 
inclusive.] New York and Philadelphia: 1883-84. 

Rabone, John: Some Portraits of Shakespeare. [In the Bir- 
mingham Daily Gazette for November 20, 1883.] Bir- 
mingham: 1883. 

Leighton, William: Review of Shakespeare's Bones. [In 
Shake speariana for December, 1883.] New York : 1883. 

Norris, J. Parker: The Death Mask of Shakespeare. [Pri- 
vately reprinted from Shake speariana for February, 1884.] 
8vo. Philadelphia: 1884. 

[Jones, Charles :] How Shakespeare's Skull was Stolen and 
Found. i6mo. London: 1884. 

Rabone, John : A Lecture on Some Portraits of Shakespeare, 
etc. [Privately printed.] 8vo. Birmingham: 1884. 

Norris, J. Parker : Shall we open Shakespeare's Grave ? [In 
The Manhattan for July, 1884.] New York : 1884. 

King, Thomas D. : Shall we open Shakespeare's Grave ? No. 
A Reply to the question put by Mr. J. Parker Norris in 
the July number of The Manhattan. [Privately printed.] 
8vo. Montreal: 1884. 

Morgan, Appleton : William Shakespeare's Grave. [In Shake- 
speariana for October, 1884.] Philadelphia: 1884. 



XXV111 LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. 

[Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. :] Hand List of Drawings and 
Engravings illustrative of the Life of Shakespeare, etc. 
[Privately printed.] 8vo. Brighton: 1884. 

Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : Outlines of the Life of Shake- 
speare. Fourth Edition. Royal 8vo. London: 1884. 

Lee, Sidney L. : Stratford-on-Avon from the Earliest Times to 
the Death of William Shakespeare. Folio. London : 
1885. 



SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE'S GRAVE? A PLEA 

FOR ASCERTAINING THE TRUE LIKENESS 

OF THE POET. 



NINE years ago the present writer suggested the 
advisability of opening Shakespeare's grave and 
reverently examining his remains. Immediately after the 
publication of the suggestion a storm of abuse arose, 
during which the real merits of the proposal were lost 
sight of, and each critic vied with his brother in heaping 
opprobrious epithets on the head of him who had dared 
to suggest that which appeared to them to be a desecra- 
tion of the poet's tomb. 

"What do you expect to find but dust in the grave of 
one who has been buried over two hundred and fifty 
years?" was jeeringly asked by some of the critics. 

But some of the seed that was then sown fell on good 
ground, and the idea has taken root in the minds of many. 
What may be the ultimate result it is difficult to say, but 



2 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

it is to be hoped that the advancement of scientific accu- 
racy may yet conquer mere sentiment. 

Lately Dr. C. M. Ingleby, Vice-President of the Royal 
Society of Literature, Honorary Member of the German 
Shakespeare Society, and Life Trustee of Shakespeare's 
Birthplace, Museum, and New Place, at Stratford-upon- 
Avon, has written an excellent little volume,* in which 
the proposal to open Shakespeare's grave is ably consid- 
ered and a favorable conclusion arrived at. 

It is the purpose of the present essay to discuss the 
question in all the aspects which have yet been pre- 
sented, and to answer those persons who object to such 
an examination. 

And first, as to the probability of finding anything but 
dust in the grave, much can be said. Shakespeare was 
buried underneath the chancel of the Church of Holy 
Trinity, at Stratford-upon-Avon, alongside of the graves 
of his wife, his daughter Susanna Hall, John Hall, her 
husband, and Thomas Nashe, the husband of Elizabeth, 
daughter of John and Susanna Hall. These graves lie 
side by side, and stretch across the chancel of the church, 
immediately in front of the rail separating the altar from 
the remainder of the chancel. 

The situation of these graves shows that Shakespeare 

* Shakespeare 1 s Bones, etc. London: 1883. 4to. 



SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE S GRAVE f 3 

and his family were persons of importance in the town of 
Stratford-upon-Avon, and make it very probable that the 
poet was buried in an hermetically-sealed leaden coffin. 
They were commonly used in those days for those whose 
relatives could afford them. If this conjecture be true, 
the remains will certainly be found in a much better state 
of preservation than if a wooden coffin alone was em- 
ployed, although, even in the latter case, we must not 
despair of finding much that would be of the utmost 
value in determining his personal appearance. 

Not many years ago some graves of those who were 
buried about the same time as Shakespeare were opened 
at Church Lawford, in England, and the faces, figures and 
even the very dresses of their occupants were quite per- 
fect; but half an hour after the admission of air they 
became heaps of dust. A long enough period elapsed, 
however, to have enabled a photographer to have made 
successful pictures of them had any such preparations 
been thought of. 

Very often the features and clothing of the dead are 
preserved for hundreds of years after burial, and, on 
opening their graves, wonderful sights have been seen. 
In a few minutes the remains often crumble away, and 
nothing but dust is left, but for a short time (long enough 
to take a photograph) the illusion is startling. 



4 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Think of a photograph of Shakespeare, "in his habit 
as he lived!" Would not such a relic be of inestimable 
value to the world, and what would not be given for 
such a treasure? 

History furnishes us with many cases where the tombs 
of kings and queens have been opened, and their bodies, 
after the lapse of hundreds of years, appeared quite per- 
fect. 

In 1542 the Bishop of Bayeux obtained permission to 
examine the tomb of William the Conqueror. It will 
be remembered that he died in 1087, so that he had then 
lain in the grave four hundred and fifty-five years. When 
the stone covering the tomb was removed the body ap- 
peared entire, and in such a good state of preservation 
that the bishop had a painting made of the great king, 
as he lay there, by an artist of Caen. This he had hung up 
in the abbey, opposite to the tomb. The grave was then 
closed and remained untouched until 1562, when it was 
again opened, this time by irreverent hands. The 
Calvinists, under the command of Chastillon, had taken 
Caen, and opened the tomb under the idea that some- 
thing of value would be found therein. The flesh had 
now disappeared from the bones, and nothing remained 
except the skeleton, wrapped in its clothes. These were 
thrown about the church and other indignities offered 
the bones. 









SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE S GRAVE t 5 

Mary, a daughter of King Edward IV., a girl of fifteen, 
died in 1482, and was buried in St. George's Chapel, 
Windsor. In 181 7, three hundred and thirty-five years 
after her burial, her tomb was opened. A curl of hair 
protruded from the coffin ; and, on opening the latter, 
the girl's eyes, which were seen to be of a bright blue, 
were found to be open, and the face and figure quite per- 
fect. On being exposed to the air the whole soon became 
dust, but the hair remained, and some of it was preserved 
by those who were present. 

In 1 789 the vault where her father was buried was also 
examined. He had likewise been interred in the Chapel 
of St. George, at Windsor. A leaden coffin surrounded 
the inner one of wood, and in the latter the skeleton of 
King Edward IV. was entire and perfect. The clothes in 
which he had been buried were probably removed by 
some one who had previously opened the tomb, for no 
trace of them was found. The hair was perfect and 
entire, and it was perhaps owing to this previous opening 
of the tomb, and the consequent admission of air, that the 
remains were not found in a still more perfect state. As 
King Edward IV. died in 1483, it consequently follows 
that an interval of three hundred and six years elapsed 
between the year of his burial and 1789, when the skele- 
ton was found entire. 



6 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

In 1 8 1 3, during the search that was made in the vaults 
of St. George's Chapel by order of King George IV. for 
the body of King Charles I., Sir Henry Halford examined 
the remains of King Henry VIII., and commented on the 
very large frame of that much-married sovereign ; and yet 
this was two hundred and sixty-six years after the king's 
death, which occurred in 1547. 

Perhaps one of the most remarkable instances of find- 
ing the body of one who has long lain in the grave in a 
good state of preservation, is that of Katharine Parr, the 
sixth queen of King Henry VIII. She died in 1548, and 
was originally buried on the north side of the altar of the 
chapel of Sudley. In 1782, two hundred and thirty-four 
years after her entombment, the grave was opened. The 
leaden coffin having been cut open, the body was found 
carefully wrapped in a waxed cloth. This was removed, 
and it was discovered that the face was almost as it 
must have been when she was buried. The eyes of the 
dead queen were perfect. The inscription on the coffin 
showed that there could be no doubt as to the identity of 
the body. The earth was replaced in the grave, without 
the waxed cloth being placed over the face, and the 
leaden coffin was left open. Later in the summer of the 
same year a Mr. John Lucas again examined the body. 
He took off all the waxed cloth and found the entire 



SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE'S GRAVE? 7 

body in a good state of preservation, notwithstanding 
the great time it had lain in the ground. The flesh of the 
arms was white and moist. Again the coffin was opened 
in 1 784, and the body was this time taken out and rudely 
treated. Now the air had begun to do its work, and 
decay commenced. The body was again interred, but in 
October, 1786, a scientific examination of the remains 
was made by the Rev. Tredway Nash, F.A.S., who made 
a report of the result of his inquiries, which was pub- 
lished in Volume IX, of Archceologia, for 1787, being the 
Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries. Mr. Nash 
gives a facsimile of the inscription on the leaden coffin, 
setting out the name of the deceased, her rank as queen 
to King Henry VIII., and her subsequent marriage to 
Thomas, Lord Sudley, and the date of her death. Mr. 
Nash further states that he then found the face decayed, 
and the teeth fallen. The body was perfect, the hands 
and nails of a brownish color. The covering in which 
the body had been wrapped, and which conduced to its 
former perfect preservation, until it was destroyed, con- 
sisted of linen, dipped in wax, tar and gums, and the ex- 
ternal lead-covering followed the shape of the figure. 

When King Charles I. was buried the coffin contained 
no inscription to designate its royal occupant, until one 
of his admirers supplied this want by wrapping around it 



8 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

a band of sheet lead, out of which had been cut spaces 
with a penknife, so that these formed large letters, which 
read, "CHARLES REX, 1649." Later, the very place 
where his coffin was deposited had been forgotten, until 
in 181 3, on the occasion of the funeral of the Duchess of 
Brunswick, King George IV., attended by Sir Henry 
Halford and a number of noblemen, found it in a vault near 
the bodies of King Henry VIII. and his queen, Jane Sey- 
mour. Sir Henry has published an account of the open- 
ing of King Charles's coffin. He states that on April 1, 
1813, the leaden coffin containing the remains was opened. 
Inside was found a wooden one, and on opening this the 
body was disclosed, wrapped in waxed cloths, covered 
with grease and resin. When these cloths were re- 
moved from the face, an impression of the dead king's 
features was plainly visible in them, and had plaster of 
Paris been poured into this mould, a cast of the face of 
the deceased could easily have been made. Sir Henry 
continues: "The complexion of the skin was dark and 
discolored. The forehead and temples had lost little or 
nothing of their muscular substance ; the cartilage of the 
nose was gone ; but the left eye, in the first moment of 
exposure, was open and full, though it vanished almost 
immediately; and the pointed beard, so characteristic of 
the reign of King Charles, was perfect. The shape of 






SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE' S GRAVE? 



the face was a long oval ; many of the teeth remained ; 
and the left ear, in consequence of the interposition of 
the unctuous matter between it and the cerecloth, was 
found entire." 

The head was loose, and was held up to view, as it 
had originally been, after having been severed from the 
unfortunate king's body. After a sketch had been made, 
and the identity of the body established beyond dispute, 
the head was returned to the coffin, the latter soldered 
up again, and replaced in the vault. At this time the 
skeleton of King Henry VIII., showing the beard on the 
chin, was also seen. 

These instances of the opening of the graves of cele- 
brated historical personages could easily be added to, 
but enough have been given above to show that bodies 
often remain far longer than Shakespeare's has done, 
and yet show a remarkable state of preservation. 

Now, let us see if public sentiment has prevented the 
examination of the graves of those who were great in the 
walks of literature and art. 

Schiller died May 9, 1805, at Weimar. Two days 
after his death the funeral took place, and his body was 
deposited in a vault which contained many coffins. In 
1826 the vault was visited, Schiller's remains were re- 
moved, and, finally, in 1827, they were laid in a sar- 



IO THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

cophagus which had been built by direction of Goethe. 
Before they were finally entombed in this sarcophagus 
the bones and skull were carefully examined. 

Raphael died April 6, 1520. In 1833 there was much 
dispute as to whether a skull which had been preserved 
in the Academy of St. Luke, at Rome, and claimed to be 
that of the great artist, was really his. On Septem- 
ber 14, of the same year, the real remains of Raphael 
were found in a vault behind the high altar, in the Church 
of the Rotunda, and proven beyond a doubt to be his. 
A cast was made of the skull, and one from the right 
hand; and on October 18, 1833, the remains were re- 
interred in their former resting-place in a marble sar- 
cophagus presented by Pope Gregory XVI. 

Milton died November 8, 1674, and was buried four 
days afterward in St. Giles's Church, Cripplegate, London. 
His tomb was near the chancel. On August 4, 1790, a 
coffin was removed, and the supposed remains of the 
poet examined. It was discovered, however, that the 
bones which the coffin contained were those of a woman. 
Milton's remains are thought to still rest where they 
were originally deposited, but no feeling against their 
removal, and only the blundering of those who had the 
matter in charge, prevented their examination. 

Burns died July 21, 1796, and in March, 1834, when 



SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE S GRAVE t II 

his tomb was. opened to receive his wife's body, the poet's 
coffin was opened, and a cast of his head was made. Mr. 
Archibald Blacklock, a surgeon who was present, tells us 
that the cast was successfully made, as the bones of the 
skull were perfect, except "a little erosion of their exter- 
nal table," and were "firmly held together by their su- 
tures, " etc. The skull was then enclosed in a leaden 
case and buried where it was originally found. 

Ben Jonson died August 6, 1637, and was buried in 
Westminster Abbey. His grave is directly under a 
square marble slab, inscribed "O RARE BEN JON- 
SON;" and the tradition is that the poet was buried in a 
standing position. Frank Buckland, the well-known 
writer on natural history, took occasion to examine his 
tomb, when Sir Robert Wilson's grave was being made 
ready in its immediate vicinity. He says the workmen 
"found a coffin very much decayed, which, from the 
appearance of the remains, must have originally been 
placed in an upright position." A skull was found, 
which Buckland supposed was Ben Jonson's, and was 
removed by him. After examining it carefully he re- 
turned it to its original position. In 1859, when John 
Hunter's body was brought to the Abbey, the same place 
was again exposed. Again Mr. Buckland secured what 
he supposed was the poet's skull, and after making a 



12 



THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 



further examination of it, returned it to its resting-place. 
Shortly after this a communication appeared in the 
London Times to the effect that "the skull of Ben Jon- 
son was in the possession of a blind gentleman at Strat- 
ford-upon-Avon." Hereupon Mr. Buckland made further 
inquiries, and tells us that "he has convinced himself 
that the skull which he had taken such care of on two oc- 
casions was not Ben Jonson's skull at all; that a Mr. 
Ryde had anticipated him both times in removing and 
replacing the genuine article, and that the Warwickshire 
claimant was a third skull which Mr. Ryde observed had 
been purloined from the grave on the second opening." 

Mr. Buckland was satisfied that Mr. Ryde's skull was 
the genuine one, because he (Mr. Ryde) described his 
skull as having red hair. No authority exists for suppos- 
ing that Ben had this colored hair, but the poet himself says 
that his hair was black, and a portrait of him so represents 
him. Jonson was sixty-five when he died, and had his 
hair been originally either red or black, as Lieutenant- 
Colonel Cunningham observes (in his edition of Gifford's 
Ben Jonson), it would not then have been any other color 
than gray. 

Sir Francis Bacon, one of the greatest and yet also 
the least of men (for his life shows a wonderful fall from 
high position), he whom a class of seekers after notoriety, 






SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE'S GRAVE? 1 3 

in the shape of a new sensation, would claim as the 
author of the immortal Shakespeare's works, died in 1626. 
He was buried in St. Michael's Church, St. Albans. On 
the occasion of the burial of the last Lord Verulam, a 
search was made for the remains of Sir Francis, during 
which a partition wall of the vault was pulled down, and 
the ground under his monument was explored, but they 
could not be found. 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that on opening 
Shakespeare's grave we should find nothing but his skull 
and a few bones. Of what good would they be to us? 
This question has been well answered by Dr. Ingleby in 
the work above cited. He says that "beyond question, 
the skull of Shakespeare, might we discover it in any- 
thing like its condition at the time of its interment, would 
be of still greater interest and value than Schiller's or 
Raphael's. It would at least settle two disputed points 
in the Stratford bust ; it would test the Droeshout print, 
and every one of the half-dozen portraits-in-oil which pass 
as presentments of Shakespeare's face at different periods 
of his life. Moreover, it would pronounce decisively on 
the pretensions of the Kesselstadt Death Mask, and we 
should know whether that was from the 'flying mould' 
after which Gerard Johnson worked when he sculptured 
the bust. Negative evidence the skull would assuredly 



14 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

furnish; but there is reason for believing that it would 
afford positive evidence in favor of the bust, one or other 
of the portraits, or even of the Death Mask ; and why, I 
ask, should not an attempt be made to recover Shake- 
speare's skull?" 

After reading the above passage from Dr. Ingleby's 
book, Dr. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps wrote to the Mayor and 
Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon, protesting against 
any opening of the poet's grave. He said that even if 
a skull were found in the grave its evidence would not 
weigh against that of the bust, for, he added, if its for- 
mation did not correspond with that of the effigy "the 
inference would naturally be that it was not Shake- 
speare's." Whose skull would it be if not the poet's? 
Does Dr. Halliwell - Phillipps think that any one has 
already opened the grave, taken away the real skull, 
and substituted another? There is no record of any- 
one else having been buried in the same grave as 
Shakespeare. The graves of his wife and family are 
side by side, near his, as has already been stated ; and 
there was no one else at all likely to have been interred 
with him in the same grave. 

Within the last few months a Mr. James Hare, of 
Birmingham, wrote to a local paper of that town, giving 
a remarkable account of a visit to Shakespeare's grave. 



SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE'S GRAVE? 1 5 

Mr. Hare said that either in 1826 or 1827 he went to 
Stratford-upon-Avon with a friend, and on visiting the 
poet's tomb they found the vault adjoining it was open, 
as he thinks, for an addition to its contents ; that he and 
his friend got into the adjoining vault, and stood upon 
a board. While there they looked through an opening 
in the wall that separated Shakespeare's tomb from the 
one they were standing in, and that he could see noth- 
ing in it but "a slight elevation of mouldering dust on 
its level floor, and the smallness of the quantity sur- 
prised me. No trace or appearance of a coffin or unde- 
composed bones, and certainly no such elevation as a 
skull, for instance, would occasion; and the impression 
produced by its then present state was that the remains 
were enclosed in an ordinary wooden coffin, and simply 
laid on the floor of the vault, be that floor what it may. 
If a leaden casket had been used it would have been 
present in some form or other, or had an amount of 
earth been dug out to bury it below the surface, a de- 
pression would have been the natural consequence of 
the decay beneath, and the elevation could not then be 
accounted for." 

No doubt Mr. Hare gives a truthful account of what 
he saw, or thought he saw, but the question is, could he 
reasonably expect to see anything under the circum- 



i6 



THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 



stances? He was standing in a vault, looking through 
an opening into an adjoining one that was, of course, 
very dimly lighted by the crevice — if, indeed, it was not 
all dark, as it probably was. In such darkness, with 
his eyes not accustomed to the gloom, what could he 
see? If there had been a leaden coffin in which the 
poet was buried, it would, in all probability, have en- 
closed a wooden one in which the body rested. This 
would have made the leaden one very large, and it would 
probably have occupied the whole of the floor of the 
vault, which was only made for one coffin, and could 
easily have been mistaken by Mr. Hare for the bottom 
of the vault. The "slight elevation of mouldering dust" 
that he speaks of, was probably some of the cement or 
mortar that had fallen from the sides of the vault. 

Another thing must be here noted, and that is, that 
there was a regularly built vault in which the poet was 
buried, and not an ordinary grave dug in the earth. 
Such a vault, with stone or brick sides, would be much 
more conducive to the preservation of a body than the 
mere earth. But the leaden coffin, in which the poet 
was in all probability buried, would render the remains 
impervious to all damp, and "water is a sore decayer of 
your whoreson dead body," as the grave-digger in Ham- 
let well remarks. 






SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE S GRAVE? 1 7 

Much has been written, by those of a sentimental turn 
of mind, about the doggerel lines cut on the stone which 
covers the poet's grave; and they have even been called 
"the touching epitaph, written by the poet himself, im- 
ploring that his remains should be allowed to rest in 
peace." 

There is not the slightest evidence to warrant the be- 
lief that they were written by Shakespeare, and the evi- 
dence of the lines themselves is strong presumptive proof 
against such a belief. 

No one who has carefully read and studied the poet's 
works can really believe that he wrote such lame and 
halting verses as these : 

" Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare, 
To digg the dvst encloased heare : 
Bleste be ye man yt spares thes stones, 
And cvrst be he yt moves my bones." 

They were probably placed over the grave by some 
member of his family, to prevent the removal of his body 
to the old charnel-house which formerly adjoined the 
chancel of the church. Shakespeare may have seen this, 
with the neglected piles of bones that filled it, and have 
conceived the idea, which he afterward expressed to his 
family, that he would not have wished his remains to be 

3 



1 8 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

placed where there was such confusion and neglect. 
This charnel-house was taken down in 1800. 

Had we a likeness of the poet, executed by a compe- 
tent artist, and of undoubted authority, there would per- 
haps be no occasion to examine Shakespeare's remains. 
But here we are all at sea. Only two "counterfeit pre- 
sentments" of the poet have a well proven pedigree — the 
bust in the chancel of the Church of Holy Trinity, Strat- 
ford-upon-Avon, and the print published in the First 
Folio edition of the plays. The former was the work of 
one whose occupation it was to sculpture the rude effigies 
of the dead which were placed on their monuments — for 
of such ability were Gerard Johnson and his sons, and 
nothing more. No one has ever pretended to claim for 
the sculptor any artistic merit. The figure is rudely cut 
out of a block of soft stone, and though some have seen 
fit to praise it, none can look upon its manifest defects 
without wishing to know if he who wrote for all time did 
really inhabit such a body as this. 

As for the print of Martin Droeshout, published in the 
First Folio, it is even worse than the bust. It has no 
claim to rank as a work of art, it is not known from what 
it is copied, and many think it unlike any human being. 

Now comes the trouble. Both of these representa- 
tions of Shakespeare are well authenticated, and they 



SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE'S GRAVE? 1 9 

are the only ones that are, but are they like one another? 
No, they are not. Many have thought they saw a cer- 
tain resemblance between them, but the wish to do so 
was the father of the thought. They are very different. 
Which is the correct one, or is either a true likeness? 
The bust was probably erected by his family, and may 
reasonably be supposed to have some resemblance to 
him ; while the engraving is certified to be a correct like- 
ness by his friend Ben Jonson. 

All the other portraits, and there are more than a 
dozen, are doubtful, to say the least. The famous Chan- 
dos Portrait, which is the commonly accepted likeness of 
the poet, has a very doubtful pedigree. The Death Mask 
represents a noble face, and one which all would wish 
that Shakespeare really did resemble, but its pedigree is 
very defective, and only a certain likeness can be traced 
in it to the authenticated portraits. 

Shakespeare's skull would set all these doubts at rest, 
even if we found nothing more in the grave. But if, by 
good fortune, a photograph of the poet's face could be 
made, would not the end justify the means taken to 
secure it? That such a hope is not a wild impossibility 
is known to science, and the instances given above of 
the opening of the graves of many poets and others, 
would seem to lead to but one conclusion, that the world 






20 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

will not rest satisfied until the experiment has been tried, 
and the tomb at Stratford-upon-Avon made to give up 
its mystery. Let it be done reverently, but let it be 
done soon. Every year that rolls by of course helps to 
defeat the end that is to be attained. But that it will 
finally be done is surely but a question of time. 









W§t strattottt Ettst 



From Photograph of Original by Thrupp. 



THE STRATFORD BUST. 



THE Stratford Bust is the oldest, and probably the 
best authenticated of all the representations of 
Shakespeare which have come down to us. It is erected 
on the inside wall, on the north side of the chancel of 
Holy Trinity Church, at Stratford-upon-Avon, at a dis- 
tance of about five feet from the floor. Underneath the 
floor of the chancel, in front of the monument, are the 
graves of Shakespeare and his family. 

It was sculptured either by Gerard Johnson or one of 
his sons. Johnson was a native of Amsterdam, who 
afterwards came to London to follow his business of 
sculptor and "tombe-maker." In 1593 he had been in 
England for twenty-six years, and it is quite probable, 
therefore, that in 161 6, when Shakespeare died, Gerard 
Johnson was too old to work himself and allowed one of 
his sons to make this monument. 

(2!) 



22 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Gerard Johnson resided in St. Thomas Apostle's, 
in the Ward of Vintry, London, and had five sons, four 
journeymen, two apprentices and "one Englishman." 
He appears to have done quite an extensive business 
in "tombe-making," as his trade was then called. 

Dugdale speaks in his Diary, 1653, (which was pub- 
lished in 1827,*) of "Shakespeares and John Combes 
monuments, at Stratford super Avon, made by one 
Gerard Johnson." 

John Combe left £60 for the erection of his tomb, 
which he directed by his will, should be finished within a 
year from the date of his death. Combe died in 1614, 
but his will was proved in November, 161 5, and his ex- 
ecutors probably did not set about its erection until the 
following Spring, when Shakespeare died. The family 
of the latter may have chosen the same time to order the 
monument to the poet's memory, as they are both by 
the same sculptor. 

The exact date of the erection of the monument and 
bust is not known, however, but it was probably 
shortly after Shakespeare's death, in 161 6. When the 
First Folio edition of his works was published, in 1623, 
it contained these lines: 

* Life, Diary, etc. 4to. 1827, p. 99. 



TO THE MEMORIE 

of the deceased Authour Maister 

W. Shakespeare. 

Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes giue 
The world thy Workes: thy Workes, by which, out-Hue 
Thy Tombe, thy name must: when that stone is rent, 
And Time dissolues thy Stratford Moniment, 
Here we aliue shall view thee still. This Booke, 
When Brasse and Marble fade, shall make thee looke 
Fresh to all Ages: when Poster itie 
Shall loath what's new, thinke all is prodegie 
That is not Shake-speares ; eury Line, each Verse 
Here shall reuiue, redeeme thee from thy Herse. 
Nor Fire, nor cankring Age, as Naso said, 
Of his, thy wit-fraught Booke shall once inuade. 
Nor shall I ere beleeue, or thinke thee dead 
{Though mist) vntill our bankrout Stage be sped 
{jfmpossible) with some new straine £ out-do 
Passions ^/"Iuliet, and her Romeo; 
Or till J heare a Scene more nobly take, 
Then when thy half-sword par lying Romans spake. 
Till these, till any of thy Volumes rest 
Shall with more fire, more feeling be exprest, 
Be sure, our Shake-speare, thou canst neuer dye, 
But crown d with Lawrell, Hue eternally. 

L. Digges. 



24 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

The words, "And Time dissolues thy Stratford Moni- 
ment," evidently refer to the present one ; which has 
remained from the date of its erection to the present 
time. 

The bust and the cushion in front of it are made of 
bluish limestone, which is quite soft. It is the size of 
life, and is rough on the back, and there is an indentation 
at the back of the head. The columns on each side are 
now of black marble, polished, while their capitals and 
bases are of freestone, gilded. The columns are of 
the Corinthian order of architecture. 

All of the entablatures were formerly of white ala- 
baster, but these were taken out in 1 749, owing to their 
having decayed, and the marble ones were substituted. 

Above the bust is an arch surmounting the niche in 
which it rests. Over this are the arms of Shakespeare, 
on either side of which are two cherubim, one of whom 
holds a spade, and the other an inverted torch, while he 
rests his hand on a skull. On the apex of the monu- 
ment is another skull. 

Underneath the cushion, in front of the bust, is the 
following inscription, on an oblong tablet : 

Ivdicio Pylivm, genio Socratem, arte Maronem 
Terra tegit, popvlvs m^ret, Olympvs habet 



THE STRATFORD BUST. 25 

Stay Passenger why goest thov by so fast ? 
read if thov canst, whom enviovs death hath plast, 
with in this monvment shakspeare: with whome, 
qvigk natvre dide: whose name, doth deck ys tombe, 
far more, then cost: sleh all, yx he hath writt, 
Leaves living art, bvt page, to serve his witt. 

OBHT ANO DO 1 l6l6 
iETATIS 53 DIE 23 AP. 

This inscription was certainly not written by a native 
of Stratford, for it refers to the body of Shakespeare 
being " within this monument," when we know that his 
grave is under the floor of the chancel, in front of the 
monument. 

Shakespeare is represented as composing his works. 
The right hand holds a pen while the left rests on a pa- 
per on the cushion. The effigy was originally painted 
in colors to resemble life. The face and hands were of 
a flesh color ; the eyes of a light hazel ; the hair and the 
beard were auburn. The doublet was scarlet, and the 
loose gown without sleeves worn over it, was black. 
The upper portion of the cushion was green, the lower 
red, with gilt tassels on the corners. 

In 1749 the monument had become somewhat dilapi- 
dated, and in that year it was repaired. The money for 
this purpose was raised by a performance of Othello, 
which was given in the Town Hall, at Stratford-upon- 
Avon. 
4 



26 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

At this time (1749) the marble entablatures were sub- 
stituted for the alabaster ones which had become de- 
cayed, and the colors were renewed, care being taken to 
preserve the original tints. A forefinger of the right 
hand and a portion of the thumb of the same, which were 
broken off, together with the pen which had been be- 
tween the fingers, were also replaced at the same time. 
In 1 790 it again became necessary to replace these pieces 
of stone, which were missing, and William Roberts of 
Oxford was selected to do the work. 

In 1793 Edmond Malone (who had published an edi- 
tion of the poet's works in 1790), advised the vicar ol 
Holy Trinity Church to have the bust painted white. 
This was done, apparently by an ordinary house painter, 
whose coarse brush left lines in the paint. Malone's 
classical taste was offended by the coloring ad vivum, 
but apart from the vandalism of thus injuring so inter- 
esting and valuable a relic of the great poet, he seems 
to have forgotten that the Greeks frequently colored 
their statues. 

This white paint was allowed to remain on the bust 
until 1 86 1, when it was removed by Simon Collins, a 
restorer of pictures residing in London. Mr. Collins 
went to Stratford-upon-Avon, and on removing the white 
paint he found that enough of the old coloring remained 
to enable him to restore the bust to its original colors. 



£fje stratforir Ettst 



From Photograph of Original by Thrupp. 



THE STRATFORD BUST. 2*/ 

Speaking of this restoration, Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Phil- 
lipps says: 

"This step was induced by the seriously adverse criti- 
cism to which the operation of 1793 had been subjected, 
but although the action then taken was undoubtedly 
injudicious, it did not altogether obliterate the semblance 
of an intellectual human being, and this is more than can 
be said of the miserable travesty which now distresses 
the eye of the pilgrim." * 

Whether the bust looked better in its white state, or 
when colored, is a question as to which there has been 
much difference of opinion ; but as it was originally col- 
ored it certainly was only proper that the colors should 
have been restored. Any one who has seen a cast from 
the bust in a white or gray state, would hardy know it 
for the same statue as the colored one, so much does the 
coloring alter the expression. 

Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps writing of the bust before 
Malone's paint had been removed, said: 

"The bust, when minutely examined, contains indica- 
tions of individuality that render such a supposition" 
[z. e., that it was a fanciful likeness] "altogether inadmissi- 
ble ; for no artist, working either from a picture, or rely- 

* Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 4th edition. London: 1884, 8vo., p. 231. 



28 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

ing on memory, description, or imagination, would have 
introduced the peculiarities which belong to it, amongst 
which may be specially noticed the slight but singular 
fall of the cheek under the right eye, which has been at- 
tributed to the sculptor copying from a cast taken after 
death. The forehead and the formation of the head 
should alone be decisive evidences in favor of its authen- 
ticity. There is, in truth, a convincing and a mental 
likeness in this monument, one that grows upon us by 
contemplation, and makes us unwilling to accept any 
other resemblance. If it has fallen beneath a cloud, the 
reason must be sought for in the circumstance that an 
image, the composition of which derives no assistance 
from the ideal, can scarcely be expected to satisfy the 
imagination in the delineation of features belonging to 
so great an intellect. But to those who can bring them- 
selves to believe that, notwithstanding his unrivalled 
genius, Shakespeare was a realization of existence, and 
in his daily career, much as other men were, the bust at 
Stratford will convey very nearly all that it is desirable 
to know of his outward form." * 

Friswell speaks of the bust in very unflattering terms : 
" The skull of the figure, rudely cut and heavy, with- 

* The Works of William Shakespeare. London : 1853, folio, Vol. I, p. 230. 






THE STRATFORD BUST. 29 

out any feeling, is a mere block ; a phrenologist would 
be puzzled at its smoothness and roundness. It has no 
more individuality or power in it than a boy's marble. 
The cheeks are fat and sensual, the neck just rounded 
out of the soft stone ; the linen collar of the dress like a 
sheet of bent block tin." * 

Dr. C. M. Ingleby's opinion is also unfavorable : 
" How awkward is the ensemble of the face ! What a 
painful stare, with its goggle eyes and gaping mouth ! 
The expression of this face has been credited with 
humor, bonhommie, hilarity and jollity. To me it is de- 
cidedly clownish; and it is suggestive of a man crunching 
a sour apple, or struck with amazement at some unpleas- 
ant spectacle. Yet there is force in the lineaments of 
this muscular face. One can hardly doubt that it is an 
unintentional caricature; but for that very reason it 
should be an unmistakeable likeness." -j- 

Boaden thus refers to the head of the figure: 

"The contour of the head is well given. The lips are 

very carefully carved; but the eyes appear to me to be 

of a very poor character: the curves of the lids have no 

grace — the eyes themselves no protecting prominences 

* Life Portraits of William Shakespeare. London: 1864, 8vo., p. 10. 

j- Shakespeare: the Man, and the Book. Part I, p. 79. London: 1877, 4to. 



30 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

of bone, and the whole of this important feature is tame 
and superficial." * 

Wivell remarks that "the nose and forehead are fine; 
and were it not for a rather disproportionate length from 
the former to the mouth, the face would be remarkably- 
handsome. It has a more fleshy appearance than any 
of the other portraits, and has much less of the look of 
a Jew than most of them, as his beard is trimmed to the 
fashion of the time." f 

Some years ago William Page, a celebrated artist, 
made a study of the principal portraits of Shakespeare, 
for the purpose of making a bust of the poet. His views 
about the Stratford bust are particularly valuable. He 
says: 

"The most inexpert observer may see, by placing a 
cast of it beside a fine antique or an excellent modern 
portrait, what I mean when I say that it shows very- 
crude and unskilled modelling. This does not mean 
it may not have many individual characteristics. Artists 
and others have always known that the eyes were im- 
possible, the nose worked off too short, or the end of it 
never reached, as the spot where it should join the 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 31. 
•j- An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 140. 



THE STRATFORD BUST. 3 1 

upper lip is still marked in the bust; and had the nose 
started out at right angles to the lip at that place, in- 
stead of slanting up to its present point, truth and 
beauty each would have been subserved. Though care- 
lessly, falsely, and hence wickedly misinterpreted in 
many ways, still there are fixed facts in this bust which 
make it valuable in some points of likeness. ***** 
The left side is flattened away from the mouth back 
toward the middle of the cheek. This was probably a 
true characteristic of his" [z. e., Gerard Johnson's] "model. 
Then the lower part of his cheek is fattened out and 
made very full under the jaw. This characteristic is 
probably exaggerated if it existed at all, the sculptor 
supposing that the flesh of the cheeks in the reclining 
posture fell back, and should be replaced in this manner, 
since he represented his subject upright. On the right 
side of the mouth there is a contrasting fullness of the 
cheek, and then a falling away diagonally to the jaw, 
from which, around to the throat, you find the line less 
curved than on the other side. The individual character 
of this one-sidedness, which exists in some way in every 
face, was doubtless founded on a mask from nature, and 
is exactly graded, recorded and interpreted in the Ger- 
man Mask. The Greeks valued these natural inequal- 



32 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

ities. The Venus of Milo's face is one-sided, and the 
Theseus's eyebrows unlike. 

"I should have stated before, that when I speak of 
right and left side I mean Shakespeare's, and not the 
observer's. 

"In the Stratford bust the lower lip is peculiar, the 
right side being sensibly fuller and hanging down lower 
than the left side. It is crudely rendered, yet a fact 
safely lodged there can never be ousted. There is also 
an indentation at the left corner of the mouth, more 
accentuated than on the other side, which is dragged 
down rather vertically toward the chin. 

"The sculptor certainly had some guide for these 
varieties of undulations. The luckiest guess does not 
hit in a portrait. These personal peculiarities exist in 
the Mask, where they are seen not to have been exag- 
gerated by death."* 

F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A., made a very careful drawing 
of the bust for Halliwell-Phillipps' Folio Edition of 
Shakespeare, and was much impressed by the excellence 
with which the monument was executed. He believed 
the face to have been sculptured with singular delicacy 
and care except the eyes. 

* A Study of Shakespeare's Portraits. London : 1876, 24200., p. 16. 



THE STRATFORD BUST. 33 

Many persons have thought that the face of the effigy 
was made after a mask taken from life, or from a dead 
face. John Bell, a distinguished sculptor, believed this, 
and Sir Francis Chantrey, another sculptor of eminence, 
is said to have shared in this opinion also. 

If this be true it would account for the poorness of the 
eyes, which are mere elliptical openings. The cast (if 
the sculptor worked from one) would show the eyes 
closed, and his skill not being sufficient to enable him to 
successfully represent them open, would account for his 
failure in this respect. 

If the cast were taken after death the cheeks would 
probably have presented a somewhat sunken appearance ; 
and in the effort to restore this deficiency, the sculptor 
might easily have made the cheeks too full, as they now 
appear to be. 

The shortness of the nose, and the unusual length of 
the upper lip, have been frequently noticed and com- 
mented upon. In 1 8 14 John Britton was the means of 
inducing George Bullock to make a cast of the effigy. 
The vicar of the church (who was then the Rev. Dr. 
Davenport), and the parochial authorities, having given 
permission, the bust was taken down from the niche in 
which it rests, and a successful mould made from it. 
Britton states that Bullock found it "in a decayed and 



34 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

dangerous state" and further that "it would be risking 
its destruction to remove it again." * 

R. B. Wheler, the well known antiquarian of Stratford- 
upon-Avon, and author of one of the best local histories 
of that town, was present when Bullock took the bust 
down from its niche, and stated, in a letter to Britton, 
that there was no date or inscription on the back of the 
effigy, f 

When Bullock had finished making his mould of the 
bust, he made a cast from it, and invited Sir Walter Scott, 
Benjamin West, Dr. Spurzheim, and John Britton, to 
breakfast with him. It was on this occasion that Bullock 
made a cast of Scott's head. 

These gentlemen entered into a discussion about the 
cast of the Stratford bust, which was in the room. Dr. 
Spurzheim and Benjamin West both commented upon the 
characteristics of the bust, and the latter on this occasion 
said that the eyes, nose, mouth, forehead, cheeks and hair 
were all "imitations of nature, modelled from the person 
whilst living, or from a cast after death. There was no 
appearance of fancy, or of its having been modelled 
merely from recollection." J 

* Appendix to Britton 's Attto- Biography. London: 1850, 8vo., p. 6. 
f Ibid, p. 13. 
% Ibid, p. 8. 



THE STRATFORD BUST. 35 

Sir Walter Scott particularly commented on the great 
space between the nose and the upper lip, and all the 
others agreed with him that the sculptor must have made 
an error here. Bullock declared that Scott had the same 
peculiarity to an even greater degree than Shakespeare, 
as shown in the bust. A pair of compasses were pro- 
duced, and Scott's upper lip was found to be a quarter of 
an inch further from his nose than Shakespeare's. * 

There was originally a stone pen in the right hand of 
the effigy, but it is related that a young man who had 
taken it out of the fingers to examine it, dropped it on 
the floor of the chancel, where it was broken to pieces. 
A quill pen dipped in ink now replaces it. 

To most people the bust is at first sight disappointing 
— especially if seen in its colored state. It grows upon 
one, however, the more it is looked at, and a white or 
gray cast from it becomes very pleasing after long famil- 
iarity with it. 

It certainly was erected shortly after Shakespeare's 
death, and probably by some of his family. It was put 
in a conspicuous place in the chancel of his native church, 
and in the sight of his fellow townsmen. Even if we ad- 
mit that its sculptor was nothing more than a "tombe- 

* Appendix to Britton's Auto- Biography. London: 1850, 8vo., p. 8. 



36 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

maker," as he undoubtedly was, still the bust must have 
had strong- points of resemblance to the poet or it would 
not have been accepted. Rudely cut it certainly is, and 
it possesses no claims to being a work of art. 

Its appearance is very different when viewed from dif- 
ferent positions. Looked at from underneath the very 
full appearance of the cheeks and the throat is espe- 
cially noticeable. Seen from a level the effect is much 
better, while a three-quarters view is the most pleasing. 
The nose is undoubtedly very short, and the supposition 
that it met with an accident while the sculptor was work- 
ing at it would not seem altogether improbable, if we did 
not remember that other faces have been met with in life 
with the same peculiarity — notably that of Sir Walter 
Scott, already referred to. 

A large number of engravings have been executed 
which pretend to represent the bust, but the majority of 
them utterly fail to do so. 

Rowe's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1709, i6mo. 
(Vol. I, p. xxxvii,), contains an engraving of the monu- 
ment and bust which is almost a caricature. The cheru- 
bim are represented as balancing themselves over the top, 
with their legs hanging down; the one who should 
have the inverted torch is holding an hour glass, and the 
other holds up the spade instead of leaning on it. The 



£fj* Stratfortr Wwt. 



From Photograph of Original. 



THE STRATFORD BUST. $7 

head of the bust looks more like the Chandos portrait 
than the bust, while Shakespeare is represented as pat- 
ting a pillow with both hands instead of resting his hands 
on the cushion, as in the original. Only two lines of the 
inscription underneath are given. 

An engraving by G. Vertue, published in Pope's edi- 
tion of Shakespeare, London : 1725, 410., gives the monu- 
ment (Vol. I, p. xxxi,) with tolerable accuracy, except 
that one of the cherubim is represented with a candle 
instead of the spade which he really holds in his hand, 
and the other hand rests on an hour glass instead of a 
rock; while the other cherub is seated on the skull, in- 
stead of resting his hand on it. The torch in his hand is 
upright also, instead of inverted, as it should be. The 
bust, however, as represented in this picture has the head 
taken from the Chandos portrait. It is a striking illustra- 
tion of the inaccuracy of some of the older engravers. 

H. Gravelot has evidently copied Vertue's plate for 
Hanmer's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1744, 4to. 
(Vol. I, p. xxxiii,), as that plate is almost an exact copy 
of it, except that the hair is not as well engraved. The 
Chandos head appears on the bust in this plate also. 
This same plate of Gravelot' s was used in Hanmer's sec- 
ond edition of Shakespeare, London: 1771, 4to. (Vol. I, 
p. xxii.) 



38 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Grignion engraved a poor copy of the plate which was 
published in Rowe's Shakespeare (1709) for Bell's edi- 
tion of the poet's works, London: 1788, 241110. (Vol. II, 
p. 468. The plate is dated 1786.) 

A poor plate, drawn by S. Harding, and engraved by 
A. Birrell, was published in Harding's Shakespeare Illus- 
trated, London: 1793. 

Samuel Ireland published an engraving of the monu- 
ment, from a drawing by himself, in his Picturesque Views 
on the Upper, or Warwickshire Avon, London: 1795, 
8vo. The bust is represented so badly that it is a mere 
caricature. 

The earliest engraving of the bust that did it anything 
like justice was published in BoydelFs Folio Edition of 
Shakespeare, London: 1602, Vol. I. It is engraved 
by J. Neagle, from a drawing by J. Boydell. The monu- 
ment is correctly represented, with the exception that 
the cherubim have torches, instead of only one. The 
figure of the bust is too short, the hand that holds the 
pen is badly drawn, and the face is less full than that 
of the original. 

When Wheler's History and Antiquities of Stratford- 
upon-Avon was published in 1806, it contained an en- 
graving of the monument by F. Eginton, from a drawing 
by Wheler. The monument is fairly well represented, 



THE STRATFORD BUST. 39 

but the bust has not fared so well. Wheler has elon- 
gated the face and changed its expression entirely. 

A very handsome mezzotint, representing the bust 
alone, engraved by William Ward, and published by J. 
Britton, in 1816, is by far the best picture of the bust 
that had appeared at that time; and in a collection of 
prints it is sure to command attention by its admirable 
appearance. The head and figure are very well drawn, 
and the black background brings out the bust in striking 
relief. 

W. T. Fry engraved a plate of the bust, from a cast 
by Bullock, which was published by Caddell and Davies, 
in Drake's Shakespeare and his Times, London: 18 17, 
4to. It is a three-quarter face view, and has great merit. 

Robert Smirke, R.A., was an artist of some merit, but 
his picture of the bust, engraved by R. Ashby, and pub- 
lished by Hurst, Robinson & Co., circa 1820, certainly 
did not add to his reputation. It is entirely unlike the 
original. - 

All of the above mentioned engravings represented 
the bust in its white state, but the first one that showed 
it in colors was engraved by W. Finden, from a drawing 
by J. Thurston, and published by W. Walker, in 1820. 
The lower part of the jaw is very badly done, but other- 
wise the engraving is admirable. This same plate, very 



4-0 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

much worn, was afterwards used in Charles Cowden 
Clarke's Shakespeare Characters, London: 1863, 8vo. 

A very poor copy of the bust only, in its white state, 
was engraved by Fry, and published by F. C. & J. Riv- 
ington, June 25, 182 1, in Vol. Ill of Boswell's edition of 
Malone's Shakespeare, London: 182 1, 8vo. 

E. Scriven engraved a handsome plate of the head 
and shoulders of the bust, from a drawing by J. Boaden, 
published in Boaden's Inqtiiry, London: 1824, 8vo. It 
represents the bust as white, and the cheeks are too 
full, but the top of the head is very fine. Boaden 
must have stood below the bust when making his draw- 
ing, and hence this picture gives the head too flat an ap- 
pearance. Had he been on a level with his subject, this 
defect would have been remedied. 

Wivell drew a fine picture of the bust only, which was 
very well engraved in stipple by I. S. Agar, and pub- 
lished by George Lawford, in 1825. It shows the bust in 
its white state, and the view is almost directly in front. 
It is most creditable both to the artist and engraver, and 
will always be sought for as being among the best en- 
gravings of the bust that have been published. 

Another drawing by Wivell, engraved by T. A. Dean, 
and published in Wivell's Inquiry, London: 1827, 8vo., 
is of the head and shoulders only, and is not as success- 



THE STRATFORD BUST. 4 1 

ful as the one above mentioned. It shows the bust in its 
white state. 

In Wivell's Inquiry, London: 1827, 8vo., is also an 
engraving of the whole monument by W. Wallis, from a 
drawing in the possession of J. Britton. The effigy is by 
Wivell, however, and though smali, is quite well done. 

Valpy's Shakespeare, London: 1832, i6mo., Vol. I, p. 
xli, contains a poor engraving by Starling. 

Illustrations of Stratford-upon-Avon, published by Ward, 
in 1 85 1, folio, contains an interesting lithograph of the 
monument, showing the bust in its white state. It is 
well drawn and tolerably accurate, but the cheeks are 
not full enough. 

A fair engraving of the bust by G. Greatbach, from a 
drawing by T. D. Scott, was published in Vol. II of Tallis' 
Shakespeare. (185 1?) 

A very accurately drawn and carefully engraved copy 
of the whole monument, by F. W. Fairholt, was published 
in Halliwell-Phillipps' Folio Shakespeare, Vol. I, London: 
1853. Mr. Fairholt evidently has taken great pains with 
his work, but there is an expression about the face in his 
engraving which is different from the original. 

Singer's second edition of Shakespeare, London: 1856, 
1 6mo., Vol. I, contains an engraving of the bust only, by 
E. Radclyffe, which is fair. 
6 



42 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

A small engraving, (with no engraver's name,) ap- 
peared in Knight's Cabinet Shakespeare, London: 1856, 
241110., Vol. X; and another in Vol. XI of the same work. 

Dyce's first edition of Shakespeare, London: 1857, 
8vo., Vol. I, has a good engraving of the bust only, by 
Francis Holl. The same plate was used in Dyce's second 
edition of the poet's works, London: 1866, 8vo., Vol. I, 
and also in the third edition of the same work, London: 
1875, 8vo., Vol. II. 

Staunton's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1858, 
royal 8vo., contains a good engraving of the bust, drawn 
by E. W. Robinson, and engraved by H. Robinson. 
The same plate was used in Staunton's Library Edition, 
London: 1863, 8vo. 

A fair engraving on wood of the bust, by W. J. Linton, 
was published in Wise's Shakespeare, his Birth-place, etc., 
London: 1861, i6mo. 

No engraving, however good, is able to represent the 
bust as it really is, and it remains for the camera to give 
us a faithful copy of the effigy. 

Small photographs of the monument were published 
in Hunter's Shakespeare and Stratford, London: 1864, 
i6mo., and in Jephson's Shakespeare: his Birthplace, etc., 
London: 1864, 8vo. ; but the one in Friswell's Life Por- 
traits, London: 1864, 8vo., is far better. It is un- 



THE STRATFORD BUST. 43 

doubtedly the best small photograph of the monument 
that has been published, and gives a good idea of it. 
The photographs in different copies of the book vary- 
somewhat, however, owing to their having been printed 
from several negatives, and some are not as good as 
others. 

In 1864 John Burton & Sons published some large 
photographs of the monument, taken by Thrupp, of Bir- 
mingham, which cannot be excelled, and which admir- 
ably represent the monument as it is. The camera has 
evidently been placed on a level with the monument in 
taking the negatives, and the result is therefore highly 
satisfactory. Some of these photographs show the 
whole monument, and others, which are larger, give 
nearly all of it. 

Bell's Shakespeare, London: 1865, i6mo., Vol. I, has 
a fair engraving of the bust, but the engraver's name is 
not given. 

Two fine photographs of the bust, (but taken from a 
white cast,) showing a front and side view, accompany 
Gabriel Harrison's privately printed brochure, entitled 
The Stratford Bust, Brooklyn: 1865, 4to. 

In Walter's Shakespeare s Home and Rural Life, Lon- 
don: 1874, folio, there was published a very good helio- 
type of the monument. 



44 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Numerous photographs have since been taken, all of 
which give a better idea of the bust than engravings do — 
unless the latter are made from them. 

In 1882 the New Shakespeare Society published a large 
phototype of the monument, which would be all that could 
be desired, were it not for a certain blurred appearance 
that is noticeable in parts of it. It is taken from directly 
in front of the monument, and on a level with it. 

The following year, 1883, the same Society issued a 
chromo-phototype of the monument, which gives the 
present colors of the effigy, the entablature, etc. It is 
well done, and is a valuable representation of this very 
interesting relic of the great poet. 



ant)* Brorssfjoiet Sufltafotn^ 



From Photo-Lithograph of Original by Day and Son. 



THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 



IN 1623 was published the first collected edition of 
Shakespeare's plays, generally known as the First 
Folio. It was edited by John Heminge and Henry Con- 
dell, Shakespeare's friends and fellow actors, and is of 
folio size. On the title-page, in a space left for the pur- 
pose, this engraving appears. The plate is about 7^ 
inches long by 65^ wide. Under the lower left hand 
corner of the latter is the inscription : " Martin Droeshout 
sculpsit London." The same plate was used in the 
Second (1632), Third (1663 and 1664), and Fourth 
(1685) Folio editions of Shakespeare. In the Second 
Folio the plate appeared in the same position as in the 
first edition, and this is also the case in the copies of the 
Third Folio that are dated 1663; but in copies of that 
edition dated 1 664 the engraving is on a leaf opposite to, 
and facing the title-page, and surmounting the verses by 

(45) 



46 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Ben Jonson referred to below. In the Fourth Folio the 
engraving occupies the same place that it does in copies 
of the third edition dated 1664. 

In the first, second, and 1663 copies of the third edi- 
tion, opposite the title-page, and facing it, on the back of 
the leaf which generally bears the bastard title in books, 
are printed the following verses by Ben Jonson : 

To the Reader. 

This Figure, that thou here seest put, 

It was for gentle Shakespeare cut; 
Wherein the Grauer had a strife 

with Nature, to out-doo the life: 
O, could he but have drawne his wit 

As well in brasse, as he hath hit 
His face ; the Print would then surpasse 

All, that was euer writ in brasse. 
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke 

Not on his Picture, but his Booke. 

B. I. 

In copies of the third edition dated 1664, and in the 
Fourth Folio, these verses, with some unimportant typo- 
graphical variations, appear on the same page as the por- 
trait and surmounted by it — that is, facing the title-page. 



mtU=$fc$t of Wfyt iFitst iFoifo. 



Showing how The Droeshout Engraving appeared in it. 



Mr. WILLIAM 

SHAKESPEARES 

COMEDIES, 
HISTORIES, & 
TRAGEDIES. 

Publifhed according to the True Originall Copies. 




LONDON 
Printed by Ifaac laggard, and Ed. Blount. 1623. 



THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 47 

The verses are printed above as they appear in the 
first edition. They are certainly not of a high order of 
merit, but quite in accordance with the spirit of the time 
when they were written. 

Droeshout engraved a number of plates, among which 
may be mentioned portraits of John Fox; John Howson, 
Bishop of Durham ; William Fairfax, and Lord Mountjoy 
Blount. His portrait of Shakespeare, however, while ex- 
hibiting the same hard, stiff style, is the worst of them all. 

As the same plate was used in the four folio editions, 
it became more worn with each successive edition, until, 
in the fourth, it was very much poorer than in the first. 
Bohn says that the print, as it appeared in the first edi- 
tion "is distinguishable from subsequent impressions by 
the shading on the left of the forehead (as it stands be- 
fore you), which is expressed by single lines curving in- 
wards from left to right without any crossing whatever, 
while in the repaired state, as it occurs in the fourth edi- 
tion, the lines are strongly crossed, and bend outwards. 
Besides this, the hair is crossed in the repaired state, 
while in the original it is in single lines."* 

The opinions of critics as to the merits of Droeshout's 
engraving have been various, but it has failed to receive 
a hearty commendation from any of them. 

* Lowndes' Bibliographer's Manual, etc. Edited by Bohn. London: 1863, 8vo., 
p. 2255. 



48 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

George Steevens says: "The verses in praise of 
Droeshout's performance were probably written as soon 
as they were bespoke, and before their author had an 
opportunity or inclination to compare the plate with its 
original. * * * * It is lucky indeed for those to whom 
metrical recommendations are necessary, that custom 
does not require they should be delivered upon oath. 
It is likewise probable that Ben Jonson had no acquaint- 
ance with the graphick art, and might not have been 
oversolicitous about the style in which Shakespeare's 
lineaments were transmitted to posterity." 

John Britton, the antiquary, endorses what Steevens 
says, and adds that he cannot express his opinions better 
than by quoting Steevens' language, which he accord- 
ingly does.* 

Boaden, on the other hand, thinks that "this portrait 
exhibits an aspect of calm benevolence and tender 
thought ; great comprehension, and a kind of mixt feel- 
ing, as when melancholy yields to the suggestions of 
fancy." He further relates that Mr. Kemble, the cele- 
brated actor, was much pleased with it.f 

Wivell's opinion is also favorable, and he thinks that 
this engraving has the "most indubitable right to origi- 

* Appendix to Britton' s Auto-Biography , etc. London: 1850, 8vo., p. 18. 
f An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 17. 



THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 49 

nality. It is, as I may say, the key to unlock and detect 
almost all the impositions that have, at various times, 
arrested so much of public attention. It is a witness 
that can refute all false evidence, and will satisfy every 
discerner how to appreciate and how to convict."* 

Friswell says that the engraving is "not a skilful one, 
nor does it leave a very pleasing image on the beholder. 
* * * * * The eyes are peculiar; they are hardly fel- 
lows, but are not altogether ill drawn, and have about 
them a worn and hard-worked look. The cheeks are 
full and round; the hair straight, and turned under at 
the ears, which are without rings ; the lip is long, and the 
moustache grows under each nostril, leaving a complete 
division as in the bust. * * * We may therefore, after 
weighing the evidence carefully, and taking into con- 
sideration the probabilities of the case, assume that the 
most authentic representation of the poet is that of the 
head attached to the First Folio of 1623, and that we 
may take it, together with the bust at Stratford-upon- 
Avon, as a test of the genuineness of the many other 
assumed portraits of the poet."-f- 

Dr. Ingleby is of opinion that "next in authenticity to 
the bust is Droeshout's engraving, prefixed to the First 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 56. 

•f Life Portraits, etc. London: 1864, 8vo., pp. 40, 42, and 45. 

7 



50 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Folio edition of Shakespeare's Works. It must have 
been executed after Shakespeare's death ; and therefore 
we may be sure it was taken from some sketch or paint- 
ing, probably in the possession of Mrs. Shakespeare or 
Dr. John Hall. ***** Even in its best state it is 
such a monstrosity, that I, for one, do not believe that it 
had any trustworthy exemplar."* 

J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps thinks that "although the de- 
fects in the drawing are painfully apparent, yet as being 
in all probability a copy from a genuine original picture, 
it is entitled to respectful consideration. Making allow- 
ances for inaccurate proportions, there appears to me to 
be a sufficient similarity between the bust and the print 
to lead to the conclusion that both are authentic and 
confirmatory of each other. "-j- 

It will be seen that while some critics find nothing to 
admire, others think quite favorably of this portrait. It 
certainly has no claim to rank very high as a work of 
art, and it strikes many people at first sight as unlike 
any human being; but long familiarity with it makes one 
first tolerate, and then grow to like it. It is as well au- 
thenticated as the Stratford bust, for Ben Jonson's testi- 
mony is of the highest value. He knew Shakespeare 

* Shakespeare: the Man, and the Book. London: 1877, 4to., pp. 8l, 83. 

f The Works of William Shakespeare, etc. London: 1853, folio, Vol. I, p. 237. 



THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 5 1 

well, and loved him too, in spite of what his detractors 
have tried to show. It is not probable, therefore, that 
Jonson would have given such a high testimonial to its 
merit as a likeness if it had not been so. Probably its 
faults are all to be laid at the door of Martin Droeshout. 
It is deeply to be regretted that the publishers of the 
First Folio did not select a better engraver. 

It is, of course, impossible to say from what Droeshout 
engraved his plate, but it is more than probable that it 
was from some painting. Steevens believed at one time 
that he had found the original of this engraving in the 
Felton portrait (and it certainly bears a great resem- 
blance to the latter), but the pedigree of that picture is 
so defective that it is more than probable that the Felton 
portrait was copied from the Droeshout engraving many 
years after the publication of the latter. 

Droeshout's engraving is supposed by many to repre- 
sent Shakespeare in a theatrical costume, with a stage 
wig. Indeed, critics have even gone so far as to suggest 
that it represented him in the character of Old Knowell 
in Ben Jonson's play of Every Man in his Humour, in 
which Shakespeare is known to have acted. It has also 
been further suggested that if this were so it would 
help to explain Ben Jonson's warm commendation of 
the engraving. While very ingenious, of course these 
are only conjectures. 



52 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps possesses an impression 
of the Droeshout engraving in a different state from any 
in which it appeared in the four folio editions. He thus 
describes it, in a privately printed catalogue of his en- 
gravings, etc.: 

"The engraved head of Shakespeare on the title-page 
of the first collective edition of his Plays, 1623, Martin 
Droeshout sculpsit, London. The original engraving by 
Droeshout before it was altered by an inferior hand, of ex- 
treme rarity, and the earliest engraved portrait of Shake- 
speare in existence. 

"No writers on the subject have suspected that the 
engraved portrait of Shakespeare, by Droeshout, 1623, 
has hitherto been accessible to them and to the public 
only in a vitiated form. 

"A very superficial comparison of this original impres- 
sion, with the print in its ordinary state, will suffice to 
establish the wide difference of appearance between the 
two impressions, a difference so great as to present an 
absolute variation of expression. But a long and atten- 
tive examination will be required before all the minute 
points of difference will be observed. Amongst these 
may be specially mentioned one in the left eyebrow of 
the portrait, which, in the original, is shaded from left to 
right, whereas, in the other, it is shaded from right to 



THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 53 

left. In the latter, under the shading can be traced, with 
the aid of the magnifying glass, portions of the earlier 
work, a fact decisively proving that the engraving was 
altered, perhaps by some inferior hand, into the form 
hitherto generally seen. 

"The following observations upon the present copy of 
the engraving were kindly communicated by my late 
friend, F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A. 'The portrait, in this 
state of the engraving, is remarkable for clearness of 
tone ; the shadows being very delicately rendered, so that 
the light falls upon the muscles of the face with a soft- 
ness not to be found in the ordinary impressions. This 
is particularly visible in the arch under the eye, and in the 
muscles of the mouth; the expression of the latter is 
much altered in the later states of the plate by the en- 
largement of the upturned moustache, which hides and 
destroys the true character of this part of the face. The 
whole of the shadows have been darkened by cross-hatch- 
ing and coarse dotting, particularly on the chin; this 
gives a coarse and undue prominence to some parts of 
the portrait, the forehead particularly. In this early state 
of the plate the hair is darker than any of the shadows 
on the head, and flows softly and naturally; in the re- 
touched plate the shadow is much darker than the roots 
of the hair, imparting a swelled look to the head, and 



54 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

giving the hair the appearance of a raised wig. It is re- 
markable that no shadow falls across the collar; this 
omission, and the general low tone of color in the en- 
graving, may have induced the retouching and strength- 
ening which has injured the true character of the like- 
ness, which, in its original state, is far more worthy of 
Ben Jonson's commendatory lines.' 

"Mr. William Smith, whose knowledge of early en- 
gravings is unrivalled, thus writes, in reference to a sug- 
gestion that the variations were caused by an accident to 
the plate, — 'I was unwilling to answer your note until I 
had made another careful examination of your engraving, 
as well as of the very fine impression in the usual state 
which we have recently purchased for the National Por- 
trait Gallery. This I have now done, and I can find no 
traces of any damage whatever. I fully believe that, on 
what is technically termed proving the plate, it was 
thought that much of the work was so delicate as not to 
allow of a sufficient number of impressions being printed. 
Droeshout might probably have refused to spoil his 
work, and it was retouched by an inferior and coarser 
engraver.' " * 

* A Catalogue of a small portion of the Engravings and Drawings Illustrative of 
the Life of Shakespeare, preserved in the collection formed by J. O. Halliwell, Esq., 
F.R.S. London: 1868, 8vo., p. 35- 



THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 55 

When Mr. William Page, of New York, was studying 
the subject of Shakespeare's portraits, with a view to pre- 
paring his portrait and bust of Shakespeare, he was very 
anxious to see a photograph of Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps' 
unique impression of the Droeshout engraving, and the 
present writer was glad to be able to be the means of 
procuring him one from that gentleman. 

Of this Mr. Page writes as follows : " I must record in this 
connection how the Halliwell Droeshout differs from the 
usually known print in the First Folio of 1623. I cannot 
do better than refer to Mr. Halliwell's views, as expressed 
in his 'Catalogue of a Small Portion of the Engravings 
and Drawings Illustrative of the Life of Shakespeare, 
preserved in the Collection formed by J. O. Halliwell- 
Phillipps, Esq., F.R.S., etc. Printed for Private Refer- 
ence.' My attention was called to this unique Droeshout 
by an extract from this 'Catalogue' in an article on the 
portraits of Shakespeare, by J. Parker Norris, Esq., of 
Philadelphia, who also finally procured me a full-sized 
photograph of the same from Mr. Halliwell. 

"I have carefully compared the photographs of this 
Halliwell Droeshout with the two prints from the same 
plate in the Astor Library, the darker one from the col- 
lection of the Duke of Buckingham. Mr. Halliwell's is 
evidently an earlier impression from the same plate be- 



56 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

fore it was retouched and used for the other known im- 
pressions in the First Folio of 1623. The differences 
which Mr. Halliwell points out are very obvious. In the 
impressions from the retouched plate in the Astor 
Library, the lights and darks are generally emphasized 
at the expense of characterization. Whoever retouched 
the plate, in his mistaken efforts to improve the general 
effect, lost markings, modellings, accents all over the face. 
Yet this darker impression in the Astor Library must 
have been an uncommonly good one after the retouch- 
ings mentioned. But character is lost in the left temple, 
lost utterly in the differences in the eyebrows, so evident 
in the Halliwell Droeshout, and identified in the Stratford 
bust and the Death Mask. In the retouched plate the 
eyebrows are evened over and brought to the prim pre- 
cision which the latter workman aimed at. Quite a 
thorough-going line is carried over both eyebrows, 
which, in the earlier impression, was much more delicate 
and individual. The new workman had a praiseworthy 
intention also in adding the shadow upon the collar, 
which did not exist at all in the earlier state of the plate. 
That it was the same plate may be known from the acci- 
dents in it, repeated in all the impressions by a little 
black spot under the nose and at the corner of the 
mouth. I say accidents, because there is no evidence of 



THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 57 

lines being laid by the graving tool to represent such 
markings in the original from which the portrait was 
taken. They are caused by bad places in the metal of 
the plate. The peculiar marking or corrugation of the 
left eyebrow, as indication of a certain peculiar marking 
between the nose and the hairs of the brow of the actual 
person, is all lost in the retouched plate. ***** 
The meaning of the Halliwell Droeshout is more evident, 
and the original lines laid with more truth to nature in 
the original intention. I have submitted my photograph 
of it to experts in engraving and corrected my impres- 
sions, when necessary, in regard to what was intentional 
by the artist and rendered by the graving tool, and what 
was accidental to the plate or to the impression from it."* 

The present writer also sent, by request, a photograph 
of the Halliwell-Phillipps' unique impression of the 
Droeshout engraving to Mr. Lenox, of New York, the 
founder of the Lenox Library, to whom the public owes 
so much for his noble gift, which will carry his name 
down to all time. In acknowledging its receipt, he wrote 
as follows, under date of August 24, 1874: 

"I have just received, and hasten to offer my acknowl- 
edgments for, the photographic likeness of Shake- 
speare. It enables me to understand, better than I did, 

* A Study of Shakespeare' s Portraits. London: 1876, 48mo., p. 33. 



58 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Mr. Halliwell's remarks in his 'Catalogue of Engravings 
Illustrative of Shakespeare,' though I cannot yet com- 
prehend the whole of them. Compared with the portrait 
in my copies of the Folio, 1623, 1 can see no difference in 
the shading of the left eyebrow, etc., but the upturned mous- 
tache is enlarged, and there are more lines in my copies 
for the shading of the forehead. Indeed, these seem to 
be intermediate between Mr. H.'s and those subse- 
quently struck off. Yet as a whole, mine, and especially 
Harris's fac-simile, are softer and clearer than your 
photograph — a difference owing probably to the photo- 
graph and not perhaps in the original. 

"On examining my volume I unexpectedly found a 
cutting from one of Lilly's catalogues, which I had prob- 
ably put into the volume for the purpose of examina- 
tion and forgotten. I copy it: 

"Lilly's catalogue of rare, curious, useful books, page 
112 (date not known.) * * * 

'"A perfect copy of this precious volume. The por- 
trait is in a unique state, before the shading on the left 
side of the laced collar, but imprint below is in fac-simile.' 

"In my copies the 'laced collar' on Shakespeare's left 
side is different from your photograph. There is a 
shading from the chin up to the hair." 

In 1640 there was published a work entitled: "Poems. 



MARSHALL'S COPY OF 



Wfyt 30tro*8f)0ttt iSiiflrafoing, 



From an old Engraving. 




This Shadowe is renowned Jhakelpcars-Souh oftfCaqc 
The applauje? delight? the wonder of the J tag e , 
Afature her selfe, was proud of his defignef 
cAndjcyd to weare the drefsmg of his lines \ 
The learned will Confefs^ his works arcjuch-) 
sAs neither matii nor Mufe, can prayje to muck . 
Tor ever live thy fame-, the world to tell -, 



7h 



hy like, no aae> S 



hall ever paralell . 

£ W.M Jcu\pfit. 



THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 59 

Written by Wil. Shake-speare, Gent. Printed at London 
by Tho. Cotes, and are to be sold by Iohn Benson, dwell- 
ing in St. Dunstan's Church-yard. 1640." In this book 
appeared a plate, consisting of a portrait of Shakespeare, 
copied from the Droeshout picture, but changed in many 
details. It was engraved by W. Marshall. 

In copying the Droeshout plate Marshall has turned 
the head in the opposite direction, and added to the 
length of the figure so as to show the left arm, with the 
hand covered with a gauntlet, and holding a branch of 
laurel. Over the right shoulder is a cloak. The whole 
is enclosed in an oval frame. Marshall's engraving 
presents a worse appearance than Droeshout's. 

Droeshout's engraving has been reproduced by many 
subsequent engravers, generally with indifferent results. 
They all seem to have tried to improve the original en- 
graving, and having nothing but their fancy to guide 
them in their efforts to do so, the results have not been 
satisfactory. 

The first copy from Droeshout's plate is supposed to 
have been engraved by W. Fairthorne, and was pub- 
lished in 1655. It is in an oval about an inch and a half 
long, which is at the top of a picture representing a 
woman stabbing herself, while a man looks on too aston- 
ished to stop her. Underneath the plate are the follow- 
ing lines: 



60 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

"The Fates decree, that tis a mighty wrong 

To Woemen Kinde, to have more Greife, then Tongue 

Will: Gilbirson: John Stafford excud." 

The head of Shakespeare is reversed, but is a fair 
copy of the original. 

The early editions of Shakespeare (apart from the 
four folios, which, as has before been stated, contained 
the original Droeshout engraving), did not reproduce 
this picture of the poet, but quite a good copy appeared 
in Johnson and Steevens' edition of Shakespeare, pub- 
lished in 1778. No engraver's name is given. 

An engraving published by J. Bell, September 5, 1786, 
(no engraver's name,) in Bell's edition of Shakespeare 
is next in order. It is a poor performance, and gives 
but a faint idea of the original. 

W. Sherwin engraved a plate for John Stockdale, 
which was published September 1, 1790. The entire 
expression is changed, and it is about as poor a copy as 
can well be imagined. 

The above print must not be confounded with one en- 
graved by H. Brocas, and published by William Jones, 
in 1 79 1. Brocas states that it is "from the original 
Folio Edition," but he evidently copied Sherwin's print 
of the year before instead. It closely resembles the latter 



THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 6 1 

in appearance and in the manner of its engraving, and 
has all of the faults of Sherwin's plate. 

When Ireland gave to the world his wretched forgeries, 
which he succeeded in palming off on many men (who 
should have known better) as original MS. by Shake- 
speare, Samuel Ireland engraved, Dec. i, 1795, the 
miserable drawing which bears some slight resemblance 
to the Droeshout; but it is so badly executed that it 
looks like the work of a child. It was published in the 
Miscellaneous Papers, etc., London: 1796. 

In 1807 a reprint of the First Folio was issued. It 
contained a good copy of Droeshout's print, but it is 
better engraved than his plate, and the expression 
softened. No engraver's name is given. 

In 1 819 R. Sawyer copied the plate supposed to have 
been engraved by W. Fairthorne, and which is referred 
to above. This copy was subsequently given among the 
illustrations in Wivell's Inquiry, in 1827. 

Thurston drew a very poor copy of Droeshout's 
picture, which was engraved by Rivers, and published by 
Sherwin & Co., in 182 1. In this print the expression of 
the face is much altered, and it is entirely unlike the 
original. 

J. Swaine was much more successful in his copy, pub- 
lished in Boaden's Inquiry, London: 1824, 8vo., but he 



62 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

has softened the expression very materially, and the 
lower part of the face is too dark. This plate was also 
used in Harness' Shakespeare, Vol. I, London: 1830, 8vo. 

A small engraving by Augustus Fox was published in 
Pickering's miniature edition of Shakespeare, London: 
1825, 48mo. It is fair. 

The same year (1825,) Pickering also published a 
larger plate, engraved by W. H. Worthington. The 
workmanship on the plate is very good, but the resem- 
blance to Droeshout's engraving is slight. 

In 1827 Wivell gave the best copy of the original 
engraving that had then been published. It is engraved 
by C. Picart, and accompanied Wivell's Inquiry, London: 
1827, 8vo. The background, however, and also the 
face, is not engraved in the same manner as Droeshout's 
picture. 

About this time W. Smith, of London, published quite 
a good copy of Droeshout's engraving. There is no 
date, or engraver's name, on the plate, and Ben Jonson's 
lines "To the Reader," are underneath. It is engraved 
in imitation of Droeshout's rough manner, and is very 
meritorious. 

Collier's first edition of Shakespeare, Vol. I, London: 
1844, 8vo., contains a plate engraved by H. Cook, 
which is a fair copy of the original. This same plate is 
used in Collier's edition of Shakespeare, published in 



THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 63 

one volume, 4to, London: 1853, and also in his edition 
in six volumes, 8vo, London: 1858. 

Henry Rumsey Forster's Few Remarks, etc., London: 
1849, 8vo., has a small engraving of the head of the 
Droeshout, which is very well done, but the beard is 
too dark. 

T. H. Lacy published, in 1857, a volume entitled 
The Legend of Shakespeare 's Crab Tree, by Green, which 
contained quite a fair copy of the Droeshout. The 
engraver's name is not given, and this is to be regretted, 
as the print is a very striking one. 

To engrave a copy of the Droeshout on wood is a 
very difficult feat, and it has never been successfully ac- 
complished. It was tried by G. Dalziel, for Knight's Cab- 
inet edition of Shakespeare, and the result was an utter 
failure. A wood-cut published in Grant White's Shake- 
speare, Vol. II, Boston: 1858, 8vo., was better; but 
when Lionel Booth issued his prospectus for his admira- 
ble reprint of the First Folio, it contained a very poor en- 
graving on wood from the Droeshout. Lastly, W. J. 
Linton engraved quite a large copy on wood, which was 
presented to the subscribers to Cassell's Illustrated 
Shakespeare. It is well engraved, but entirely different 
from the original. 

An engraving by H. Robinson, with Shakespeare's 
autograph under it, published about i860, possesses 



64 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

some merit, and is well engraved, but the expression is 
changed. It appeared in the Lansdowne edition of 
Shakespeare. 

The first accurate reproduction of Droeshout's picture 
was one made by the photo-zincographic process — at the 
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton, under the direc- 
tion of Sir Henry James, in 1862. The cross hatching 
on the face and in the background has come out rather 
too dark, but on the whole it is very satisfactory. A 
complete fac-simile of the title-page of the First Folio 
is given. 

A small, though very good photo-lithograph of the print 
appeared in Lionel Booth's reprint of the First Folio, 
London: 1864, in the quarto and small quarto editions 
of that book, but in the folio one a photograph is given. 

Dr. Leo's edition of Coriolanus, London: 1864, 4to., p. 
128, contains a good photo-lithograph of the Droeshout. 
An excellent photograph of it appeared in Friswell's 
Life Portraits, etc., London: 1864, 8vo. Kenny's Life 
and Genius of Shakespeare, London: 1864, 8vo., has a 
fair copy, but no engraver's name is given. 

Photographs of Droeshout's engraving are not gener- 
ally successful, as the cross hatching so extensively used 
by Droeshout does not come out clear in the negative, 
and the yellowish tint of the paper of the original folio 
causes a general darkness of tone in the print, which is 






THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 65 

not satisfactory; but an admirable one, by Preston, was 
published by Day & Son, in Staunton's Memorials of 
Shakespeare, London: 1864, folio; and a splendid photo- 
lithograph was published by the same firm April 9, 1864. 
This is from the print in the First Folio belonging to 
the Earl of Ellesmere, and is a superb copy of a brilliant 
impression of the engraving. This photo-lithograph was 
also used in Staunton's photo-lithographic reproduction 
of the First Folio, London : 1866. 

A series of four photographs, made from copies of the 
First, Second, Third, and Fourth Folios, belonging to the 
Barton collection, in the Boston Public Library, are in the 
possession of the present writer. They prove what has 
been before said about photographs of this engraving 
from the originals being seldom satisfactory. 

Mary Cowden Clarke's Edition of Shakespeare, Vol. I, 
New York: 1866, royal 8vo., contained a poor copy by 
J. C. Armytage. 

A plate by R. C. Bell in Clarke's Shakespeare, London: 
1869, 4to., is much better. 

The heliotype reproductions in Justin Winsor's Biblio- 
graphy of the Quartos and Folios, etc., Boston: 1876, 
folio, are very unsatisfactory. They are from the copies 
in the Barton collection. 

A fairly good photo-lithograph appeared in Halliwell- 



66 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Phillipps' fac-simile of the First Folio, published by 
Chatto & Windus, London: 1876, 8vo. 

A wood-cut of this print in the Leopold Shakespeare, 
London: 1877, 4 to -> an ^ another in the Avon edition of 
the poet's works, Philadelphia: 1879, royal 8vo., fall 
under the objection to wood-cut copies of this engrav- 
ing above referred to. 

In 1882 the New Shakespeare Society published a 
photograving by the Typographic Etching Company of 
London. The lines in this copy are too heavy, and 
there is a general effect of blackness which is very 
unsatisfactory. 

Marshall's plate has been frequently copied. A good 
copy was published in Johnson & Steevens' edition of 
Shakespeare, Vol. I, London: 1778, 8vo., and the same 
plate was used in the edition of 1785. 

A poor plate, by Delattre, was published in Bell's 
Shakespeare, London: 1786, i6mo. 

A copy utterly unlike Marshall's was engraved by H. 
Adlard, and published by Wetton & Jarvis, Dec. 1, 1821. 

An excellent engraving was published in Boaden's 
Inquiry, London: 1824, 8vo., and the same plate was 
used in Wivell's Inquiry, London: 1827, 8vo. 

A well engraved copy by H. Robinson was published 
in Pickering's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1832, 
i6mo. 



£fje efjatUros portrait 



From Mezzotint by Cousins. 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 



PERHAPS the best known of all the portraits pro- 
fessing to represent Shakespeare is the Chandos. 
Certainly it is the most familiar to the large mass of 
people. The cheap plaster cast, hawked about the streets 
by the Italian image vender, is modelled after this por- 
trait, while the handsome bronze that one puts over his 
clock has the same features. In a word, the Chandos is 
the popularly accepted representation of Shakespeare. 
How this has come about it would be difficult to say, un- 
less it be that the public would not have the Stratford 
bust or the Droeshout engraving. They are the only 
ones well authenticated, but they have not met with 
popular favor like the Chandos, whose pedigree is very 
unsatisfactory. 

This picture was first heard of towards the end of the 
seventeenth century, after the year 1683, when Sir God- 

(67) 



68 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

frey Kneller made a copy of it for Dryden. This is the 
first fact that we know concerning it. It has an elabo- 
rate pedigree, however, which must now be discussed. 

It is not known by whom it was painted. Some critics 
have believed that it was the work of Richard Burbage, 
the actor. He possessed considerable skill as an artist, 
and in Dulwich College there is still preserved a por- 
trait of himself which he painted. The style and man- 
ner of the work in this portrait of Burbage, are said to 
be similar to the Chandos picture. 

Joseph Taylor, an actor, is reputed to have been its 
first owner, but whether he purchased it from Burbage, 
or it was given to him by the latter, tradition is silent. 
He is supposed to have left it by will to Sir William 
D'Avenant, but no will of Taylor's has been found, 
and as the latter was extremely poor, this is not a happy 
conjecture. 

There is a tradition that Sir William D'Avenant owned 
this picture, but here again there is not a particle of 
proof. If it could be established as a fact that D'Ave- 
nant really did own this portrait, it would be much in 
favor of its authenticity. Sir William was reputed to have 
been Shakespeare's natural son, and the possession of 
his father's portrait would have been probable in the case 
of one who was proud of being thought to have had 
Shakespeare's blood in his veins. 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 69 

D' Avenant died in 1 668, and appears to have owed a 
considerable amount of money. Administration of his 
effects was granted to John Otway, in that year, who was 
his principal creditor. It was possibly at the sale of 
D'Avenant's effects that Betterton purchased the Chan- 
dos portrait; and while it was in the latter's possession it 
was engraved by Vander Gucht, for Rowe's edition of 
Shakespeare, published in 1 709. 

When Betterton died he was a poor man, and his col- 
lection of portraits of actors and others were sold. Mrs. 
Barry, the actress, purchased the Chandos portrait at that 
sale, and she afterwards sold it to Robert Keck, of the 
Temple, London, for forty guineas. 

A Mr. Nicoll, Nicholl, or Nicholls was the next owner 
(his name is spelled in a variety of ways by different 
writers). He married into the Keck family, and the por- 
trait thus came into his possession; and when his 
daughter married James, Marquis of Caernarvon, who 
was afterwards Duke of Chandos, it became the latter's 
property. From the latter nobleman it takes its name. 
The Duke of Chandos' daughter was Anna Eliza, 
Duchess of Buckingham, and she inherited the picture 
from her father. 

At the sale of the Duke of Buckingham's pictures at 
Stowe, in September, 1848,, this portrait was sold for 



JO THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

three hundred and fifty-five guineas, to the Earl of Elles- 
mere. The latter nobleman presented it in March, 1856, 
to the National Portrait Gallery, where it now remains. 

In the catalogue of that collection the history of the 
Chandos portrait is thus given: 

"The Chandos Shakespeare was the property of John 
Taylor, the player,* by whom, or by Richard Burbage, it 
was painted. The picture was left by the former, in his 
will, to Sir William D'Avenant.f After his death it was 
bought by Betterton, the actor, upon whose decease Mr. 
Keck, of the Temple, purchased it for forty guineas, 
from whom it was inherited by Mr. Nicholls, of Michen- 
don House, Southgate, Middlesex, whose only daughter 
married James, Marquis of Caernarvon, afterwards 
Duke of Chandos, father to Anna Eliza, Duchess of 
Buckingham." 

It will be noticed that the above history omits the 
ownership of the picture by Mrs. Barry; and while it 
gives the picture's pedigree as if there was very little 
doubt about it, there is no authority brought forward to 
substantiate the statements therein contained. 

* The John Taylor referred to here is probably a mistake for Joseph Taylor, as 
there was no John Taylor who was an actor. Perhaps, however, John Taylor, the 
painter, is intended. He painted two portraits of Taylor, the Water poet, which are 
in the Picture Gallery at Oxford. They bear the inscription "John Taylor pinx. 
7653," and are said to be painted in the same style as the Chandos portrait. 

f There is no authority whatever for this statement. 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 7 1 

Such is the pedigree of this famous portrait. It will be 
seen that very little is positively known regarding it, but 
that much that has been given above is founded on mere 
statements and conjectures. In length and in containing 
celebrated names its pedigree is far ahead of either the 
Stratford bust or the Droeshout engraving, but while 
they are perfectly well authenticated, this portrait's 
pedigree is largely made up of allegations not capable of 
proof. 

Betterton's ownership, as before stated, is the first 
positive fact in its history, if we except the circumstance 
of its having been copied by Kneller a short time pre- 
vious to this, and it is not even known who owned the 
picture when the latter copied it. 

When Kneller presented his copy of the picture to 
Dryden, the latter sent the painter, in return, some 
verses commencing: 

" Shakespeare, thy gift, I place before my sight, 

With awe I ask his blessing as I write; 

With reverence look on his majestick face, 

Proud to be less, but of his godlike race. 

His soul inspires me, while thy praise I write, 

And I like Teucer under Ajax fight : 

Bids thee, through me, be bold ; with dauntless breast 

Contemn the bad, and emulate the best : 

Like his, thy criticks in the attempt are lost, 

When most they rail, know then, they envy most." 



72 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Dryden's copy of the portrait afterwards came into the 
possession of Earl Fitzwilliam, of Wentworth House, and 
Dr. Waagen, in the Art Treasures of Great Britain, 
thus speaks of it: 

" A portrait of Shakespeare, a copy made by Sir God- 
frey Kneller, and by him presented to Dryden, is only so 
far interesting as showing the same features as those in 
the Chandos picture (now, 1855) in the Bridgewater 
Gallery, thus corroborating the truth of that portrait." 

Sir Joshua Reynolds is stated to have made a copy of 
the Chandos portrait in 1760, for Bishop Newton; and 
an anonymous copy was presented by Edward Capell to 
Trinity College, Cambridge. 

After the picture had been purchased by the Earl of 
Ellesmere, John Payne Collier read a paper concern- 
ing it, before the old Shakespeare Society, exhibiting the 
portrait to the members at the same time. Mr. Collier 
inclined to the belief that it was painted by Richard Bur- 
bage, the actor, who possessed some skill in painting. 
Burbage's portrait, painted by himself, which is at Dul- 
wich College, Mr. Collier thought bore evidence of having 
been painted in a similar manner. This has been denied, 
however, by H. Rodd, who was a good judge of old pic- 
tures. He says that both pictures are of the one period, 
that they have both been carelessly cleaned, and that they 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 73 

have both been retouched; but the portrait of Bur- 
bage is not well drawn or colored, and as a work of 
art it does not compare well with the Chandos portrait. 
Rodd believed that the latter was painted by Cornelius 
Jansen. This is not probable, however, as he is sup- 
posed not to have come to England before 1618, when 
he took up his residence in Blackfriars. The truth is, 
the painter of the Chandos portrait is not known, and, it 
is only reasonable to presume, he never will be. 

After Mr. Collier had read his paper before the old 
Shakespeare Society The Athenceum contained an anony- 
mous article, in which Mr. Collier's statement that the 
portrait was painted by Burbage is doubted, and the copy 
of Oldy's notes to Langbaine, (on which authority Mr. 
Collier founded his belief,) is thus given entire: 

"Mr. Nicholas [Nicholl] of Southgate has a picture of 
Shakespeare which they say was painted by old Corne- 
lius Jansen, others by Rich. Burbage the player. 

"Mr. Keck of the Temple gave Mrs. Barry 40 guineas 
for her Shakespeare — the same." 

Little or no weight must be attached to Oldy's state- 
ments, for it will be noticed that he gives the names of two 
persons who are said to have painted the picture — Corne- 
lius Jansen and Richard Burbage — and allows the reader 
to take his choice. 
10 



74 



THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 



The writer of the Athenczum article states that he 
believes the present Chandos portrait to be a copy of the 
picture painted by Burbage, but fails to give any reason 
for thinking so. He also believes that this picture was 
copied for D'Avenant, and that it belonged to him "be- 
yond the possibility of doubt," but, as before stated, 
there is no authority whatever for this allegation. 

The portrait is twenty-two inches high and eighteen 
inches wide. It is on canvas, and is painted in an oval, 
representing stone, and the background is of a reddish 
brown. The inner edge of this oval has a reflected light 
in one part of it, to represent the thickness of the stone. 
This gives somewhat of a yellowish tinge surrounding 
the head, and has been referred to by some writers to 
show that this portrait is a copy of the date of Kneller's 
pictures, that being a characteristic of the latter. In re- 
ality, however, there is no such yellowness around the 
head as these writers have claimed; indeed, the whole 
background is so dark that it is necessary to have a good 
light to see what its color is. 

George Scharf, F.S.A., and an artist of some re- 
pute, contributed a valuable and interesting paper on 
The Principal Portraits of Shakespeare to Notes and Que- 
ries for April 23, 1864. This admirable, though brief, 
essay was subsequently reprinted in book form, in 1 6mo., 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 75 

in the same year. On page 8 Mr. Scharf thus gives his 
opinion of this portrait: "It is painted on coarse English 
canvas, covered with a groundwork of greenish gray, 
which has been rubbed bare in several parts, where the 
coarse threads of the canvas happen most to project. 
Only a few parts of the face have been retouched with a 
reddish paint. Some portions of the hair seem to have 
been darkened, and a few touches of deep madder red 
may have been added to give point to the nostrils and 
eyelids. The background is a rich dark red; but the 
whole tone of the picture has become blackened, partly 
in consequence of the gray ground protruding, and partly 
from the red colors of the flesh tints having deepened 
to a brownish tone. This at first sight gives the com- 
plexion a dull swarthy hue. The features are well 
modelled, and the shadows skilfully massed, so as to 
produce a portrait in no way unworthy of the time of 
Van Somer and Cornelius Jansen. It would be folly to 
speculate upon the name of the artist, but any one con- 
versant with pictures of this period would, upon careful 
examination, pronounce it remarkably good if only the 
production of an amateur." 

Sir Joshua Reynolds is said to have been of the 
opinion that the Chandos portrait was left in an un- 
finished state by the artist, but Mr. Rodd, in a letter to 



J 6 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Mr. Forster, says that Sir Joshua could never have held 
this opinion, and attributes this peculiar appearance to 
too frequent and injudicious cleaning. He continues: 
"Sir Joshua must have known that neither the ancient 
nor the modern masters finished the borders, and the 
more minute details and subordinate parts of their pic- 
tures, before they had completed the face. The oval 
border and the dark red colored background of the pic- 
ture in question have not only been highly finished, but 
are now very pure, and, with the exception of a slight 
damage over the head, it is not retouched or 'painted 
over.' The face, hair, and dress have suffered more or 
less by an unskilful cleaner. Whoever was the person 
intrusted to clean it, he must have used a strong alkali, 
as the finish and glazing of the face are much damaged, 
and even the collar, which, being nearly all composed of 
white lead, is more durable, has materially suffered; the 
most remarkable thing is, that the mouth still remains 
perfect, and sweetly beautiful it is! The dress has 
suffered; but there is sufficient of the picture left — the 
outline being perfect — for a skilful repairer to connect 
the whole, not by 'painting over,' but by stippling in the 
small particles with paint or water-color, where rubbed 
off, to match the parts left. The head is finely drawn 
and well colored, the face has an expression of intelli- 






THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. J J 

gence and vivacity, and there is not one point in it lead- 
ing us to doubt its originality."* 

In 1783 Malone had a careful drawing made from the 
original picture by Ozias Humphry, whom he styles an 
"excellent artist." Speaking of this copy Malone (in 
1784) said: "The original having been painted by a very 
ordinary hand, having been at some subsequent period 
painted over, and being now in a state of decay, this 
copy, which is a very faithful one, is in my opinion in- 
valuable." 

Steevens (who termed this portrait the D'Avenantico- 
Bettertono - Barryan - Keckian - Nicholsian-Chandosan can- 
vas,) says, in his preface to the 1793 edition of the poet's 
works, that the reason that that edition contains no por- 
trait of Shakespeare is because "the only portrait of him 
that even pretends to authenticity, by means of injudi- 
cious cleaning, or some other accident, has become little 
better than the 'shadow of a shade.' ***** Qf fa e 
drapery and curling hair exhibited in the excellent en- 
gravings of Mr. Vertue, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Knight, the 
painting does not afford a vestige ; nor is there a feature 
or circumstance on the whole canvas, that can with mi- 
nute precision be delineated." 

* A Few Remarks, etc. London : 1849, 8vo., p. 18. 



78 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

William Page says: "Let us look next to the Chandos 
portrait, painted probably twelve or fourteen years after 
the Droeshout. Whatever shortcomings the picture 
contains, I think it was painted by a man of the craft, and 
one who had committed like artistic sins so many times 
as to fix a habit or -manner of not doing it. * * * * I re- 
peat, we are indebted to the Arundel Society's photo- 
graphs for all we can know of any of its claims to any 
characteristic likeness to nature or to Shakespeare. In 
the National Portrait Gallery it is almost a complete ne- 
gation, its cleanings and mendings leaving the expert 
scarcely a foothold in his search for the original picture."* 

The Arundel Society photograph from the original 
picture, referred to above, by Mr. Page, represents the 
portrait in a very dilapidated condition. The stone arch 
surrounding the portrait has almost entirely disappeared, 
the head has nearly faded out of sight, and the white 
collar is the one distinct thing to be seen in the whole 
picture. Desiring to know whether this photograph 
represented the picture as it now is, the present writer 
requested Dr. C. M. Ingleby, (who has given much time 
and attention to the subject of Shakespeare's portraits) 
to state his views on this point. Under date of Novem- 
ber 13, 1883, he very kindly wrote as follows: 

* A Study of Shakespeare 's Portraits. London : 1876, 24010., p. 40. 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. Jg 

"Conformably to your request, I went, yesterday, to 
the National Portrait Gallery, taking with me the Arun- 
del Society's photograph of the Chandos portrait of 
Shakespeare, and I beg to report to you as follows: 

"The photograph does not give the least notion of the 
original, which is a carefully finished picture, exhibiting 
none of the dilapidation shown in the photograph. 

"If I may trust my recollection of the portrait when it 
first left the collection of Lord Francis Egerton,* I should 
say that the picture has been restored since it became 
national property. When I first saw it, it was in very 
bad condition, the cracks in the varnish marring the 
painting. The cracks are still visible on close inspection, 
but they have been varnished over. I believe the photo- 
graph to have been made before the restoration of the 
picture, but of this I cannot be sure, as the reds come up 
so badly in a photograph, and not improbably, the picture 
was not removed from the glass which protects it. I 
could discover nothing in it to account for the dreadful 
mess in the nose and mouth in the photograph. 

"The portrait in its present condition is represented, 
with the utmost accuracy, in Samuel Cousins' mezzotint." 

Dr. Ingleby wrote to Mr. George Scharf, the Curator 

* The Earl of Ellesmere. 



80 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

of the National Portrait Gallery, asking whether the por- 
trait had been cleaned or restored. Mr. Scharf replied 
that it had not been cleaned or even varnished, so far 
as he could remember, and that the portrait was in a 
good state of preservation, and did not need anything 
done to it. 

How then can the Arundel Society's photograph be 
explained? The portrait could not have been in the 
condition it is now when that photograph was taken, or 
it would have made a much better copy than that shows. 
Compare, too, what Malone, Steevens, Rodd, Friswell, 
Scharf, and Page say about the state of the portrait. 

It is to be feared that the picture has been "restored," 
as it is called, that is, painted over so as to cover over 
much of the original work. 

The Chandos portrait is more like the Stratford bust 
than the Droeshout engraving, but many persons fail to 
find any resemblance between either of these authentic 
portraits and the subject of the present essay. It has a 
very Jewish face, and the ear-rings give it a foreign look, 
although it was not uncommon for Englishmen of Shake- 
speare's day to wear them. It is a most disappointing 
picture, and those bronzes and engravings which have 
been copied from it, and received by the public as ideal 
likenesses of the poet, owe their popularity to the skill 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 8 1 

of the artists who made them, and not to a literal render- 
ing of the original picture, which is most unsatisfactory. 

Boaden thought very favorably of this picture, and 
seems to have believed in its authenticity. He was 
much impressed with Malone's acceptance of it as a 
genuine portrait of the poet. 

Friswell says: "The picture, which is in oil, and on 
canvas, is at first glance disappointing. One cannot 
readily imagine our essentially English Shakespeare to 
have been a dark, heavy man, with a foreign expression, 
of a decidedly Jewish physiognomy, thin curly hair, a 
somewhat lubricious mouth, red-edged eyes, wanton lips, 
with a coarse expression, and his ears tricked out with 
ear-rings. The forehead has a somewhat noble aspect, 
but has been retouched by a clumsy restorer. The eyes 
are hardly well rendered in any print but that after Ozias 
Humphry, and those have a little exaggeration. They 
are of dark brown, and fixed in a thoughtful gaze. The 
eyes are full, and somewhat heavy, the supra-orbital 
ridge well developed and round, as it is in the bust — in 
the Houbraken portrait* it is flat. The hair, which is 
auburn inclining to dark brown, is in great profusion, 
the chin and upper lip fully covered with hair, the upper 

* Friswell means Houbraken's engraving of the Chandos portrait, published in 1747. 
11 



82 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

lip very short, and totally different from that of the Strat- 
ford bust or the Droeshout portrait. 

"The dress of the figure, so far as we are now able to 
distinguish, is of black satin, the collar of lawn, plain 
and simple, with white strings, which show through the 
beard, and are sewn over the collar. The painting has 
been very much scrubbed, and has been injured by inju- 
dicious cleaners and restorers."* 

It has been conjectured that the Chandos portrait repre- 
sents Shakespeare in the character of Shylock, and its 
Jewish appearance lends some weight to this supposition. 

No portrait of Shakespeare has been so frequently 
engraved as the Chandos, and it will be impossible to do 
more than notice some of the most striking prints. The 
earliest plate is by M. Vander Gucht, and was published 
in the first edition of Rowe's Shakespeare, London: 
1 709, 8vo. It is in all of the volumes, and is in an oval, 
supported on a square pedestal. On either side are 
allegorical representations of Tragedy and Comedy, 
each holding a laurel wreath over the poet's head, and 
above is an allegorical picture of Fame. All the work 
on the plate is better than the portrait of the poet, which 
is quite insignificent in size, and poorly engraved. The 

* Life Portraits, etc. London: 1864, 8vo., p. 31. 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 83 

hair is much more curly than in the original picture, and 
the costume is much more prominent than it should in a 
copy of the Chandos portrait. 

When Pope's edition of Shakespeare appeared in 
1725, 4to., it contained a beautifully executed plate by 
G. Vertue, dated 1721, which had above it, on a ribbon, 
"William Shakespeare," and underneath, the arms of the 
poet on a small shield. The portrait purports to be a 
copy of the Chandos, but it is entirely unlike it, and the 
resemblance to the pictures of James I. is striking. 

Theobald's Shakespeare, first edition, London: 1733, 
8vo., contained a plate engraved by G. Duchange and 
drawn by B. Arlaud. It is totally unlike the original 
painting. The face is turned the other way; only a 
slight drooping moustache and goatee are given instead 
of the full beard in the original ; the whole expression of 
the face is changed, and the dress is utterly unlike also. 
The portrait is in an oval, and underneath is the inscrip- 
tion, "Mr. William Shakespeare" in neat writing. 

A copy of Duchange's plate, so far as the portrait is 
concerned, was engraved by Lud. du Guernier about 
this date, but the head is turned the correct way. The 
allegorical figures of Tragedy, Comedy, and Fame are 
the same in this plate as in M. Vander Gucht's, 1709. 

Hanmer's Shakespeare, first edition, London: 1744, 



84 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

4to., contained an engraving by H. Gravelot, which, 
though well engraved, is entirely different from the 
original. The head is turned the wrong way. In Han- 
mer's second edition, London: 1771, 4to., the same plate 
was used. 

Houbraken engraved a large plate in an artistic man- 
ner, with the portrait in an oval, the head looking the 
wrong way, and beneath a group of musical instru- 
ments, a mask, etc. This was for Birch's Heads of Illus- 
trious Persons of Great Britain, London: 1743-52, folio. 
The plate is dated 1 747, and has been frequently copied 
by later engravers. It is very interesting, because it states 
that the original painting was then " in the possession of 
John Nicoll of Southgate," and fixes the date of his 
ownership. 

G. Vertue engraved a print which was published in 
Warburton's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1747, 8vo. 
It has the head reversed. The hair is very curly, and the 
expression entirely different from the original. This 
print was used in Johnson's Shakespeare, first edition 
(London: 1765, 8vo.), and in his second edition (London: 
1768, 8vo.) ; also in Johnson and Steevens' Shakespeare, 
first edition (London: 1773, 8vo.). 

G. Vander Gucht engraved a plate, with the head 
reversed, which was used in the later editions of Theo- 
bald's Shakespeare, in i6mo, e.g. 1757, etc. 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 85 

T. Cook copied Houbraken's engraving, but placed 
the head and figure the right way. It is a poor print 
and was published by G. Kearsley, circa 1770. 

John Hall engraved a small plate in 1772, which is 
better than the preceding ones, but the head and figure 
are reversed and the expression changed. 

Many of Jacob Tonson's publications, about this date, 
had on their title-pages a small wood-cut, badly executed, 
but evidently copied from Duchange's plate of 1733. 

Johnson and Steevens' Shakespeare (London: 1785, 
8vo.,) contained an engraving, by John Hall, which has 
evidently been made from the drawing by Ozias Hum- 
phry, in 1783, for Malone; and in Malone's Shakespeare 
(London : 1 790, 8vo.,) appeared a plate engraved by C. 
Knight, from the same drawing, and dated 1786. There 
is a softness of expression and an idealization about Hum- 
phry's copy which is entirely wanting in the original, 
and yet Malone said that it was "a very faithful one." 

Cook engraved another plate in 1788, for Bell's edition 
of Shakespeare, totally different from his engraving in 
circa 1770, and not at all like the original. 

About this date a good engraving, but too dark, was 
made by Goldar. "William Shakespear" is at the top of 
the plate instead of in the usual place underneath. 

A curious engraving, in an oval, with " W. Shakespear" 



86 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

on the oval, and a poor one with "Wm. Shakespeare, 
Esqr.," at the bottom, both about this date, serve to show 
the infinite variety of expression given by each different 
engraver of this portrait. 

N. Parr engraved a small oval plate very much like 
Duchange's, 1733. It was published circa 1790. 

Holl engraved an oval plate, in dots, from Humphry's 
drawing, circa 1790, and about the same time an en- 
graving by G. Vander Gucht, a son of M. Vander Gucht, 
was published. The work on it is coarse, but the re- 
semblance to Duchange's plate (1733) is unmistakeable. 
This plate must not be confounded with the one by the 
same engraver published in Theobald's later editions of 
Shakespeare, e. g. 1757, etc. It closely resembles that 
engraving but it is different. 

The Universal Magazine, circa 1 790, contained an en- 
graving copied from Houbraken's plate, which is very 
unsatisfactory. The expression has been changed, and 
Shakespeare is represented with a villainous countenance. 

In 1793 Harding's Shakespeare Ilhistrated, etc., ap- 
peared. Among the numerous engravings in that work 
was one of the Chandos portrait, drawn by S. Harding 
and engraved by Le Goux. It is very poor. 

Audinet engraved a plate, with the head reversed, 
published by Harrison & Co., March 1, 1794. It is from 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 87 

Houbraken's engraving and is small, but the workman- 
ship is very good. 

Ireland's Picturesque Views on the Upper, or Warwick- 
shire Avon, etc., London: 1795, 8vo., contained a poor 
plate drawn by Burney and engraved by C. Apostool; 
and another plate, copied from Houbraken's print, and 
well engraved, has "William Shakespear" in a circle 
surrounding it, which is divided into four parts. (No 
engraver's name. Circa 1800.) 

A very curious mezzotint engraving, "printed for 
Robt. Sayer, Print Seller, No. 53 Fleet Street," bears 
very little resemblance to the Chandos portrait, and has 
a most villainous expression. Fortunately it is very 
scarce. {Circa 1800.) 

Sharpe's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1803, 
24mo., contained a poor print drawn by R. Corbould, 
and engraved by P. W. Tomkins. 

S. Bennett engraved a plate, after Vertue's first print, 
(172 1,) which was published by I. Stockdale, January 1, 
1807; which is wretched. Vertue's print of 1721, it 
will be remembered, represented James I., while pur- 
porting to copy the Chandos portrait, and Bennett has 
feebly imitated the print. 

Malone's Shakespeare, edited by Boswell, London : 
182 1, 8vo., contained a fair print, engraved by Fry. 



88 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Heath engraved a very poor copy of the Chandos, which 
was published by Jones & Co., May 4, 1822. At the 
top of the picture is an allegorical figure representing 
Fame about to crown the poet, and at the bottom are 
Comedy and Tragedy. 

An edition of Shakespeare, published in ten volumes, 
London: 1823, i6mo., has a plate engraved by Dean, 
which is quite fair. 

The best engraving after Ozias Humphry's drawing 
is that by Scriven, and published in Boaden's Inquiry, 
London: 1824, 8vo. It is the handsomest picture made 
from the Chandos, and by far the most intellectual one. 
It has been often copied by later engravers, but it is 
not a true representation of the Chandos portrait. It 
will always be sought for as a beautiful print, and one 
of Scriven's most successful works. The same plate 
was used in Harness' edition of Shakespeare, London: 
1830, 8vo. 

Singer's first edition of Shakespeare, London: 1826, 
i6mo., contained an engraving on wood by John 
Thompson, from a drawing by W. Harvey, which is well 
done, but not a good copy of the Chandos. It is sur- 
rounded by an emblematical border. 

Wivell drew the best copy of the Chandos for his In- 
quiry, London: 1827, 8vo., that had then been published. 



THE CHAND0S PORTRAIT. 89 

It was engraved by John Cochran, mainly in dots, and is 
an excellent specimen of his work. 

Edward Smith engraved a well-executed plate for the 
Union Shakespeare, published by Robert Jennings, 
1829. It is intended to be a copy of the Chandos, 
but the artist, whose name is not given, has utterly 
failed to give the slightest idea of the original. 

A poor copy, engraved by Freeman, appeared in 
Valpy's Shakespeare, London: 1832, i6mo. 

Wivell drew another copy of this portrait, which was 
engraved by W. Holl, and published by Thomas Kelly, 
in 1837. It is much smaller than his former plate, en- 
graved in 1827, and not as good. It has a fac-simile of 
Shakespeare's autograph underneath it. 

Campbell's Shakespeare, London: 1838, 8vo., has a 
copy from Houbraken's plate, engraved by H. Robin- 
son, which is not satisfactory. 

The second edition of Wivell' s Inquiry, London: 
1840, 8vo., contained a plate by B. Holl, from Hou- 
braken's print, in which the countenance is made much 
whiter than in the original. The same plate was used in 
Stebbing's Shakespeare, London: (1845-51.?) Another 
engraving of this, much smaller, and in an oval, by Holl, 
is quite fair. Circa 1845. 

In Religious and Moral Sentences Culled from the 



90 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Works of Shakespeare, etc., London : 1847, ls tne smallest 
engraving from the Chandos portrait ever published. It 
is about half an inch in diameter, and engraved on wood. 

B. Holl again copied Houbraken's print circa 1850; 
and E. Scriven also about the same time engraved a 
plate from the original painting, which was published by- 
Charles Knight, and is quite a good representation of it. 

The "Select Portrait Gallery" in the Guide to Knowl- 
edge, circa 1850, contained an engraving from Hum- 
phry's drawing, fairly done, but with head reversed, 
and figure added from the original painting and some- 
what altered. 

In 1849 Samuel Cousins engraved a magnificent 
mezzotint for the old Shakespeare Society, which is by 
far the finest copy ever made of this portrait. Seen in an 
artist's proof it is very fine. It represents the portrait as 
if in perfect condition, and none of the defects wrought 
by time and injudicious cleaning appear in this engrav- 
ing. A good photograph of this print was published in 
Friswell's Life Portraits, etc., London: 1864, 8vo. 

About this date S. Freeman engraved a copy of Hum- 
phry's drawing, which is quite good, but has the head 
and figure reversed. 

Tallis' Shakespeare, London: (1851?,) 4to., contains a 
fair engraving by Hollis. It is surrounded by portraits 



THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 9 1 

of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria, Mr. Macready, and 
Mrs. Warner. 

A very poor copy, on wood, by G. Dalziel, was pub- 
lished in Knight's Cabinet edition of Shakespeare, in 
1851. 

The same year T. D. Scott made a very unsatisfactory 
copy from Humphry's drawing, which was engraved by 
G. Greatbach [Circa 185 1). 

About this time T. H. Ellis published a large and 
very curious plate, but the names of the copyist and 
engraver are not given. It is from the Chandos portrait, 
but the head is lengthened, the nose made much longer, 
the beard so drawn as to make the chin look longer, 
and the whole expression of the face much altered. 
The figure is turned more in profile, the shoulders 
represented as too sloping, and no attempt has been 
made to give the stone arch surrounding the portrait 
in the original. 

Hudson's first edition of Shakespeare, Boston: 1856, 
i6mo., contains a wretched copy of the Chandos portrait. 

John Faed, F.S.A., painted a large picture of Shake- 
speare, using the Chandos portrait for the head, which 
he has idealized very much. The poet is represented 
seated at a table, with his pen in one hand, and his head 
resting on the other. A book-case in the rear, with books 



92 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

piled on the floor, another chair, and an elegant curtain, 
form the other accessories of the picture, and represent a 
style of magnificence which Shakespeare certainly never 
enjoyed, unless Mr. Faed meant to represent him writing 
in the house of one of his noble patrons. James Faed 
engraved a large plate from this painting, which was 
published in 1859 by Henry Graves & Co. 

Staunton's Memorials of Shakespeare, London: 1864, 
folio, has a very good photograph of the Chandos by 
Preston. 

A beautiful lithograph, by P. Rohrbach, from a draw- 
ing by Hermann Berg, and published by E. H. Schroe- 
der, Berlin, in 1864, is worthy of all praise, both for its 
accuracy and softness. 

A chromo-lithograph, by Frank Jones, and published 
in 1872, by Bencke and Jones, New York, is the size of 
the original, and possesses some merit. 

A very good copy of Cousins' mezzotint, engraved 
by R. A. Artlett, was published by Vertue & Co., in their 
Imperial edition of Knight's Shakespeare, London: 1875, 
folio. 



Wfyz 33tatf) JSIasft* 



From Photograph of Original by Page. 



THE DEATH MASK. 



ON November 18, 1841, Count and Canon Francis 
von Kesselstadt died in Mayence, or, more prop- 
erly Mainz. He was the only surviving heir of an old 
and noble family which had lived in Cologne for many 
years. He had inherited many pictures, and had him- 
self added to the collection which descended to him 
from his ancestors. Among these were portraits of 
many historical personages, including those of Albrecht 
von Brandenburg, Gustavus Adolphus, Henry IV., Mar- 
tin Luther, Melanchthon, Albrecht Diirer, and Martin 
Schon. He also had a number of portraits of celebrated 
poets, and, among the latter, was a small picture painted 
in oil, on parchment, representing the corpse of a man, 
crowned with a wreath, lying in state on a bed. In the 
background is a burning taper, faintly represented, and 
the date, in gilt, Ao 1637. 

This picture is said to have been in the possession 

(93) 



94 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

of the Kesselstadt family at Cologne, for more than a 
century, and Professor Miiller, the Director of the 
Picture Gallery in Mayence, who knew the Count and 
Canon Francis Von Kesselstadt quite well from the year 
1 790, said that he had seen it in the Count's collection. 
He stated further that it occupied a prominent place in 
that nobleman's residence, and that it bore the in- 
scription : 

"Traditionen nach Shakespeare."* 

Professor Miiller also said that he knew the Count 
refused "some very handsome offers from parties anx- 
ious to become purchasers " of it, and that it was always 
received by all the visitors to his gallery as an authentic 
portrait of Shakespeare. 

In June, 1842, the Count's pictures, etc., were sold at 
auction, in Mayence, and this little painting was pur- 
chased by S. Jourdan, an antiquary living in that town. 
In 1845 or ^46 Ludwig Becker moved to Mayence, 
where he saw the picture in Jourdan's possession, and 
finally bought it from him in 1847. 

Becker was a portrait painter by profession, and 
originally resided in Darmstadt. The Grand Duke of 

* "According to tradition, Shakespeare." 



<?Tf)r Wcut$ JWasft, 



From Photograph of Original by Page. 




THE DEATH MASK. 95 



Hesse appointed him "Court Painter," and his minia- 
tures in water colors were much valued. 

In this connection it is only proper to state that 
Ludwig Becker, in a little pamphlet in which he gives 
the details of his purchase, etc., of this portrait, says 
that Count and Canon Francis von Kesselstadt died in 
the year 1843; but the date given above as the year of 
his death (1841) is that stated by Dr. Hermann Schaaff- 
hausen in his article "Ueber die Todtenmaske Shake- 
speare's," published in the Jahrbuch of the German 
Shakespeare Society for 1875. Dr. Schaaffhausen fur- 
ther states that the picture is 2 inches 4 lines (Rhen- 
ish measure) high, and 3 inches 8 lines wide; and that 
the entry in the sale catalogue of the Kesselstadt pic- 
tures, etc., is as follows: "A Deceased, with laurel- 
crowned head, 1637." 

The date on the picture, 1637, did not correspond with 
the year in which Shakespeare died (161 6), and Becker 
conceived the idea that it had probably been copied from 
some older one or from a cast or statue. He subse- 
quently ascertained that a plaster of Paris cast of a face 
had also formed part of the Count's collection, but that 
on the sale of his effects it had received little consid- 
eration, and no one remembered who had bought it. 
Becker was not discouraged, however, and in 1849, two 



g6 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

years after he had purchased the little picture, he tells 
us that he found the Mask he was searching for in May- 
ence, "in a broker's shop, amongst rags and articles 
of the meanest description." 

Becker states that he at once recognized the Mask 
from its likeness to the picture, and adds that "by 
adorning the cast with a wreath of cypress, and adding 
the same colored hair as in the picture, the pale chiselled 
features will assuredly awaken the endless respect which 
his works have gained for him." 

At the risk of repeating what has been said above, it 
has been thought desirable to give, in a translation, the 
following little pamphlet issued by Becker, and referred 
to above: 

"In the year 1843, the Count and Canon Francis von 
Kesselstadt died at Mayence. In the same year his 
valuable collection of curiosities and objects of art was 
disposed of by auction. Amongst other things, there 
was an unornamented small-sized oil painting (the pic- 
ture of a corpse,) which an antiquary of the town of 
Mayence bought at the sale. In the year 1847, I gained 
possession of it by purchase (see the documents here- 
with.) Professor Muller, of Mayence, knew the history 
of this picture, and communicated it to me by letter. 
In the mean time I happened to see another oil painting, 



&%t Heatf) JWasfc. 



From Photographs of Original. 



THE DEATH MASK. 97 

which, being amongst his most valued pictures, was 
hung in his own bed room, being considered to be a 
portrait of Shakespeare. It was painted in oil on parch- 
ment, and bore the date 1637. As this date does not 
coincide with the date of Shakespeare's death, 161 6, I 
stated my opinion to brother antiquarians that this pic- 
ture must, in all probability, be copied from an older one, 
or possibly have been arrived at from some existing cast 
or statue. I then learned that in this same collection of 
Graf Kesselstadt, there had been a plaster of Paris cast, 
which, on account of its melancholy appearance, had 
been treated with little consideration; who had bought 
it, nobody knew. After two years' fruitless search and 
inquiry, in the year 1849 I discovered the lost relic in a 
broker's shop, amongst rags and articles of the meanest 
description. 

"The back of it bears the inscription — 

f A_° D" 1 61 6. 

"On carefully comparing the cast with the picture, I 
could no longer doubt that the pair were to be identified 
as of the same person. 

"By adorning the cast with a wreath of cypress, and 
adding the same colored hair as in the picture, the pale 

13 



98 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

chiselled features will assuredly awaken the endless re- 
spect which his works have gained for him. 

"Ludwig Becker." 
"Edinburgh, 1850." 

Translation 

of 

Muller's Letter to L. Becker. 






"Mayence, 28th February, 1847. 
"Friend Becker: 

"Some time ago you submitted for my opinion a small 
oil painting — a sort of miniature in oils — of the English 
school, painted in the seventeenth century. This pic- 
ture represented a very celebrated Englishman, lying on 
his death-bed, in state. I remarked at the time, that in 
the features of the deceased, I instantly recognized those 
of that great European dramatic author, William Shake- 
speare, of Stratford, born in 1564, and on his death-bed, 
alas! in 161 6. You now request me to state, by letter, 
my reasons for the above opinion, it being of import- 
ance just now that you should know them. 

"I have not the least hesitation in communicating the 
following : 



Wfyt WitUMlUtXtlt MttiXXt. 



From Photograph of Original. 



THE DEATH MASK. 99 

"The picture in question was upwards of a century in 
the hands of the noble family of Kesselstadt, at Cologne ; 
which city, it is well known, kept up a lively commerce 
in works of art with London, for nearly three hundred 
years. The deceased Prebendary,* Francis Earl of Kes- 
selstadt (with whom I was on terms of intimacy since 
the year 1 790,) as only surviving heir, succeeded to the 
estates, and became possessed of all the pictures and 
chef-d'ceuvres. He himself had considerable knowledge 
of painting; was a great collector, as well as a lover and 
patron of the Fine Arts. He turned his attention, how- 
ever, more particularly to works of historical worth, the 
portraits of renowned characters, of which he had a large 
collection, and to each of which he appended a sort of 
historical reference, par exemple, Albrecht von Branden- 
burg, Gustavus Adolphus (King of Sweden), Henry IV., 
Martin Luther, Melanchthon, Albrecht Durer, Martin 
Schon; and, amongst the celebrated poets of the olden 
time, the little picture now in your possession had a 
prominent place, bearing the inscription, — 

'Traditionen nach Shakespeare.' 

This picture came into your possession after the death 

* Domherr. 



IOO THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

of Earl Kesselstadt, when his effects were put up at 
auction; and thus you had the opportunity and good 
fortune of acquiring, at a moderate price, a gem of art 
and 'world-celebrated rarity.' I cannot here omit stating, 
that among all the numerous savans, antiquaries, and 
eminent artists visiting Earl Kesselstadt's gallery, not 
the least doubt existed as to the authenticity of the 
picture of Shakespeare, to which many affirmed the 
sketches they had seen in England bore strong resem- 
blance. 

"Earl Kesselstadt, to my knowledge, refused some 
very handsome offers from parties anxious to become 
purchasers. 

"Your friend, 

" (Signed) N. Muller, 

"Professor." 

"In testimony of the authenticity of Professor Miiller's 
signature. 

" (Signed) Nack, 

"Burgomaster of Mayence*' 
"Mayence, 28th February, 1847." 






THE DEATH MASK. IOI 



Translation of 

Certificate of Purchase from 

s. jourdan, an antiquary of mayence. 



"17th March, 1847. 

"I hereby certify, at the request of Mr. L. Becker, that 
the little picture, bearing date 1637, and representing 
Shakespeare upon his death-bed, was purchased by me 
at the public sale of Earl Kesselstadt's effects, and after- 
wards sold to the above Mr. L. Becker. 

" (Signed) S. Jourdan, 

"Antiquary, Mayence." 

"In testimony of the authenticity of S. Jourdan's 

signature. 

" (Signed) Nack, 

"Burgomaster of Mayence!' 
"Mayence, 17th March, 1847." 

Some critics (Friswell among the number,) have agreed 
with Becker, that the picture is a copy from the Mask, 
but others cannot see any resemblance between the two. 
Among the latter class the present writer begs to enrol 
himself. 

The features which are shown in the little oil painting 
bear a far greater resemblance to those of Ben Jonson 



102 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

than to Shakespeare. Indeed, the resemblance to the 
picture of Ben Jonson in the Dulwich Gallery is quite 
striking. The inscription on the painting, 1637, is also 
the year that Ben Jonson died, and if the latter repre- 
sents him lying in state, then the date is correct. To 
suppose, however, that the figures refer to the year that 
the picture was painted, if it be taken as a portrait of 
Shakespeare, is a much more difficult matter. No artist 
making a copy of a man's face who had died in 161 6, 
would put the date that he made the copy (1637) in such 
a prominent place. 

How can the fact of a Mask of Shakespeare being 
in the collection of a German nobleman, long after the 
poet's death, be explained? 

Two theories have been suggested. One, that an an- 
cestor of Count and Canon Francis von Kesselstadt had 
been in England, and bought the Mask while there, as a 
relic of the great poet; and the other that Gerard John- 
son's sons returned to their father's native city of Am- 
sterdam, and brought the Mask with them; which they, 
or their father, had used in making the Stratford bust. 
The latter conjecture is that of Karl Elze, and seems 
much more probable than the former; for no member of 
the Kesselstadt family is known to have gone to Eng- 
land, though of course some one of them might have 



THE DEATH MASK. 1 03 

done so without any record of his journey having been 
preserved. 

If Gerard Johnson, or his sons, had a mask, taken from 
the face of Shakespeare after death, for their use in 
making the Stratford bust (and some of the best judges 
have declared that that effigy was sculptured from a 
mask,) certainly there is no improbability in the sons of 
Johnson taking the cast with them, after it had served 
its purpose, when they returned to Amsterdam. 

■If we advance one step further, and are willing to 
admit that this was the Mask which was so used by 
Gerard Johnson or his sons, and that it had been thus 
brought to Amsterdam, it will be easy to believe that it 
could have found its way from thence to Cologne, where 
the Kesselstadts formerly lived; and that it could have 
been bought by some member of that family. 

Here occurs, however, a very serious break in the 
chain of argument. How do we know that this Mask 
was ever in the Count's collection? It is true that 
Becker states that he "learned that, in this same collec- 
tion of Graf Kesselstadt, there had been a plaster of 
Paris cast, which, on account of its melancholy appear- 
ance, had been treated with little consideration; who 
had bought it nobody knew." But Becker does not tell 
us how he got this information, and there is no further 



104 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

proof forthcoming; nor does Prof. Miiller mention the 
Mask in his letter to Becker. 

The theories which have been advanced to explain the 
possession of the Mask by Count and Canon Francis 
von Kesselstadt, have been before referred to, but how 
is the picture of the man on his death-bed to be 
accounted for? If this really be a picture of Ben Jon- 
son, as it is believed to be by some, Professor Muller 
may have confounded the picture with the Mask, and it 
may have been the latter which had "According to tradi- 
tion, Shakespeare," under it, in the Count's collection. 
Perhaps, however, "'twere to consider too curiously, to 
consider so." 

The Mask has evidently been made from a dead face. 
It is of plaster of Paris, and of a dirty yellow color. 
This yellowish appearance is owing to the oil with which 
it has been covered, and which has soaked into it. The 
oil was probably rubbed on it when another copy was 
made from it, and would seem to indicate that it has been 
used to model from. Some hairs adhere to the mous- 
tache and the beard on the Mask, and also on the eye- 
brows and eyelashes. These hairs have been proven, 
by examination with the microscope, to be human. They 
are of a reddish brown or auburn color, and correspond 
to the color of the beard and hair of the Stratford bust, 



THE DEATH MASK. I05 

and the description of its original color on that effigy. 
With regard to this, however, it is only proper to state 
that the hair of a person which has been naturally of a 
dark color when living, often turns to a reddish brown 
on being cut off and kept for a long time. This is prob- 
ably caused by chemical change in the coloring matter 
of the hair, owing to want of the nourishment which it 
received when growing. 

To explain how these hairs became affixed to the 
Mask, it will be necessary to say a few words about the 
manner in which masks are made, which was probably 
followed in making this one also. The first process is 
to make an impression or mould of the face. A band of 
cloth is placed around the head of the person whose face 
is to be copied. This band encircles the head about 
where the ears are, and leaves exposed all the chin and 
forehead — in fact, the entire face in front of it. Soft wax 
is then poured over the face, and is kept by the band 
from running too far. It quickly hardens, and is easily 
removed. The eyebrows, eyelashes, moustache, and 
beard have been previously greased, or covered with soap 
and water, to prevent the wax from adhering to the hairs. 
In spite of this precaution, however, some few of the 
hairs will adhere to the mould, and are pulled out 
of the skin when the wax is removed. This mould is 



106 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

now an exact copy of the face from which it has been 
taken, but, of course, it is the opposite of a human face, 
for where the protuberances of the latter are, they are 
represented in the mould by corresponding indentations. 
Among sculptors the result of this process is known as a 
"flying mould." 

The mould is then oiled and filled with liquid plaster 
of Paris or wax. When this is taken out of the mould, 
a perfect cast representing each detail of the face from 
which it was taken appears, and in this process some of 
the hairs which had adhered to the mould are transferred 
to the cast. Frequently the mould becomes broken in 
making a cast, and then the cast has to be oiled to make 
another mould. The yellowish appearance of the Death 
Mask would indicate, as before stated, that it had been 
used in this way. A cast of the face only is technically 
termed a "mask." 

It would seem probable in the case of the Death Mask 
that a wax mask was first cast in the mould, as the Mask 
shows a slight wave along the bridge of the nose, and also 
a flattened surface, where the pores of the skin — which 
are everywhere else perceptible — are lost. This has 
been caused by some pressure on the nose. Had it 
been exerted on the dead face, the structure of the 
nasal organ would have resisted the pressure, and no 



THE DEATH MASK. IOJ 

such flatness would have resulted as appears in the 
Death Mask. From this wax face another mould was 
probably made, and in this the Death Mask was cast. 

Now let us trace the course that the hairs adhering to 
the Death Mask would have to take if this theory be cor- 
rect. From the dead face they adhered to the wax "fly- 
ing mould." In this was cast a wax face, and they adhered 
to this ; and from this cast another mould was made, either 
of wax or plaster, which retained the hairs. In this mould 
the Death Mask was finally cast, and these hairs appear 
in it. The hairs could easily pass from one to the other 
— from mould to mask, and vice versa — as no precautions 
were probably taken to prevent them from doing so. 

The Death Mask is in a fair state of preservation. A 
small fragment has been broken off the lower right side 
of the nose. Some persons have thought that this was 
caused by a portion of the plaster having there adhered to 
the mould ; but the shape of the damaged place is such 
as to lead to the conclusion that it was the result of a 
blow from the side. On the other side of the nose there 
are indications of the plaster having been touched with 
a knife. Lines have been cut in the moustache and 
goatee to represent the hairs. A portion of the left 
upper lip has been accidentally removed, and a part of 
the eyelashes of the left eye have disappeared. 



108 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Over the right eyebrow there is an indentation or scar 
on the forehead of the Mask extending towards the right 
side. More will be said about this hereafter. 

On the back edge of the Mask there has been placed 
the inscription: 

f A? Dh 1616. 

It has evidently been made with a blunt stick when 
the plaster was soft, and has no appearance of having 
been cut afterwards. If the latter had been the case, 
the letters would have presented a sharper appearance 
than they do. The figures are similar to those used at 
the date inscribed on it, and there is no reason to sup- 
pose that they were put there at a later date. The cross 
which precedes them is often met with in inscriptions on 
tomb stones, etc., and the "A- Dh" is an abbreviation 
for "Anno Domini." 

The same inscription is also to be seen on two other 
angles in the interior of the Mask. Here they have not 
been touched by persons handling the cast, and they are 
in a better state of preservation than those first referred 
to, which are more exposed. 

The surface of the Mask represents the pores of the 
skin with the greatest accuracy, and the incised lines 
which appear in the moustache and goatee are those 



THE DEATH MASK. IO9 

which have been made by the person making the Mask. 
It is impossible to obtain a cast of each hair as in life, 
for the grease and plaster cause them to stick together, 
and it is usual to cut lines in the cast to imitate the 
hair. This must not be supposed to detract from the 
evidence that it is a cast from a face, and it furnishes no 
argument in favor of the Mask being a mere work of 
art. Indeed the surface of the skin so perfectly ex- 
hibited in the Mask forbids any such idea. 

Regarding the question whether the art of making 
masks was known as early as Shakespeare's time, it can 
safely be answered in the affirmative. Long before 
the time of Pliny (A. D. 23) they were made. In his 
Historia Naturalis, published about A. D. JJ, he states 
that the first person who made a plaster mould of a 
human face, from which a cast was subsequently made, 
was Lysistratus of Sicyon (B. C. 321). It is true that 
Pliny does not state that the mould was taken from a 
dead face; but if they were able to take them from the 
living, it would be easier to make a mould from the 
dead. 

The passage in Pliny's Historia Naturalis, Lib. 
XXXV, 44, is as follows: 

"Hominis autem imaginem gypso e facie ipsa primus 
omnium expressit, ceraque in earn formam gypsi infusa 



IIO THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

emendare instituit Lysistratus Sicyonius, frater Lysippi, 
de quo diximus. Hie et similitudinem reddere instituit: 
ante eum quam pulcherrimas facere studebant. Idem et 
de signis emgiem exprimere invenit. Crevitque res in 
tantum, ut nulla signa, statuaeve, sine argilla fierent. Quo 
apparet, antiquiorem hanc fuisse scientiam, quam fun- 
dendi aeris." 

A mask of Martin Luther is in existence. He died at 
Eisleben in 1546. Another one of Tasso, who died in 
1595, is also extant. 

It has been suggested that many of the figures in the 
old monuments in existence in England have probably 
been modelled from casts made from moulds taken from 
the faces of those that they represent, and their placid 
expression would seem to support this theory. If this 
be so there must have been men in England who under- 
stood how to make a mould from a dead face. Wax 
was, also, often used, and casts of the faces of cele- 
brated persons were frequently colored and used on lay 
figures. These were dressed in the garments worn by 
the deceased in life, and doubtless many who saw them 
lying in state believed them to be the actual bodies. 
In the Chapel of St. Erasmus, Westminster Abbey, in an 
old closet, many of these lay figures may still be seen. 
In an account of the Abbey, published in 1754, it is 



THE DEATH MASK. Ill 

stated that "these effigies resembled the deceased as 
nearly as possible, and were wont to be exposed at the 
funerals of our princes, and other great personages, in 
open chariots, with their proper ensigns of royalty or 
honor appended." The same account states that the 
effigy of King Edward VI., was originally clothed in crim- 
son velvet robes, but time had made these resemble 
leather; but that those of Queen Elizabeth and King 
James I. were stripped of everything of value. The 
effigies of King William, Queen Mary, and Queen Anne 
were handsomely dressed in lace and velvet. Here, 
also, were the figures of Nelson and Cromwell. 

Dr. Schaaffhausen says: "The custom of erecting an 
effigy of the deceased, made from the corpse, appears to 
be a very old one. Indeed the coffins of the Egyptian 
mummies represent a human figure. The British Mu- 
seum possesses a face mask made of gold plate, said to be 
that of Nebuchadnezzar. 

"The custom, which was practiced in Egypt of gilding 
the faces of mummies of distinguished persons, is perhaps 
the origin of such modelling. Carus represents in his 
Atlas der Cranioscopie (Taf. XXIII) the mummy of an 
old Egyptian king or priest of Memphis, whose head, 
hands, and feet were gilded. 

"In Christian churches skulls of saints, in portrait-busts 



112 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

of burnished silver, were often preserved, the head of 
which enclosed the skull like a case. In the Golden 
Chamber of the Ursula Church, at Cologne, there are 
several of these portrait-busts." * 

In 1849 Ludwig Becker went to England, taking the 
Mask and the little oil painting with him. Here they 
were examined by the authorities of the British Museum 
and by many others. In 1850 Becker went to Melbourne, 
leaving the Mask and picture in the custody of Professor 
Owen, of the British Museum. While in the latter gentle- 
man's possession they were seen by many persons, and 
in 1864 they were exhibited at Stratford-upon-Avon, at 
the Tercentenary celebration of Shakespeare's birthday. 

Becker died April 24, 1861, while on an expedition 
across the Australian continent under the auspices of the 
British Government. On the fact of his death becoming 
known to Professor Owen, the latter returned the Mask 
and picture to his brothers, and since then they have been 
in the custody of Dr. Ernest Becker, the curator of the 
Grand Ducal Museum at Darmstadt. 

Professor Owen, of the British Museum, stated that if 
the fact that the Mask originally came from England 



* Translated from Ueber die Todtenmaske Shakespeare 's in the Jahrbuch of the 
German Shakespeare Society, Vol. X. Weimar: 1875, 8vo., p. 28. 






THE DEATH MASK. II3 

could be satisfactorily established, there was hardly any 
price that the Museum would have hesitated to pay for 
it. It is said that ten thousand pounds was the sum 
Becker asked for it. 

Regarding the indentation over the right eyebrow, 
which has been referred to above, Professor John S. 
Hart, who saw the Mask in Darmstadt, wrote that it was 
"merely a flake of the plaster fallen or rubbed off." Wil- 
liam Page subsequently went to Darmstadt specially to 
examine the Death Mask. He says, concerning this in- 
dentation: "From the photographs, I knew there must 
be some indentation and a loss of the texture of the skin 
in this discolored place, which, for some reason, had re- 
ceived the colored wash thus unequally. 

"My first attempt to take an impression of this spot, 
together with a part of the forehead, failed, having tried 
it in soft modelling wax, which adhered somewhat, and 
was distorted and lost in removing; but the depression in 
the spot was well shown in the relief of the wax at that 
point. My next attempt was in white, harder wax, with 
gauze intervening. This mould, though less delicate in 
parts, was very successful, and gave me a good cast in 
plaster; where the indentation is plainly visible, it may, 
perhaps, have been looked on as a defect, and has cer- 
tainly been partially filled up. In the plain white of 

15 



I 1 4 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

plaster the depression is still to be seen, though in the 
discolored spot over the brow I could not at first detect 
it." * 

Mr. Page also made a number of measures from the 
Death Mask, which he afterwards compared with the 
Stratford bust. Concerning these he says: "Of these 
twenty-six measures, at least ten or twelve fit exactly 
corresponding points in the Stratford bust, which any 
one may verify, if he will take the trouble to interpret 
the diagram here annexed, and reduce all the measure- 
ments to solid geometry. Few persons need be told 
that this planet never did, at any one moment, contain 
two adult heads, whose faces agreed in any dozen like 
measures, and the law of probabilities makes it remote 
when such an epoch will arrive. To a working artist's 
mind, the agreement of these measures is either a mira- 
cle, or demonstration that they are from the same face. 

"And, still further, the failure or misfit of the other 
more than dozen measures is confined to those parts of 
the face where there is acknowledged error on the part 
of the sculptor of the Stratford bust. In the language of 
science, 'measures are the inflexible judges placed above 
all opinions supported only by imperfect observations.' 

* A Study of Shakespeare 's Portraits. London: 1876, 48010., p. 59. 



THE DEATH MASK. 1 1 5 

"It is, indeed, singular that such an agreement in 
measure with the Stratford bust should not have been 
noted or published by the distinguished scholars and 
scientists in whose care the Mask was during its sojourn 
in England; but so far as I know, it has not hitherto 
been done." * 

Friswell thought that the appearance of the left eye of 
the mask indicated "that the process of decay had set in 
before the cast was taken, part of the cornea protruding 
from beneath the eyelid. This is the case with the same 
eye, and, curiously, with the mask of Cromwell's face."f 

Whereupon Page says: "I shall refer to only one more 
accidental break, and that of slight importance, except in 
its misconstruction ; it is where a part of the massing of 
the eyelashes in the left eye has been broken off. It has 
been cited and repeated, that here, as in the same eye in 
the mask of Cromwell, decay had set in, and something 
ran out. ***** ^he error j n regard to the eye has 
arisen probably from forgetting or not knowing that it is 
usual to mass the hairs of the eyelashes, brows, and beard 
with soap or paste, or some such preparation, to prevent 
the substance of the mould from pulling out or sticking 
to these hairs. I have never seen a more healthy cast 

* A Study of Shakespeare 1 s Portraits. London: 1876, 481110., p. 48. 
f Life Portraits, etc. London: 1864, 8vo., p. 17. 



I 1 6 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

from a dead face; and if Shakespeare was buried at 
Stratford, in April, two days after his death,* there cer- 
tainly was no time for decay in his eyes ; and the rest of 
his face shows the most natural and perfect condition, as 
though he might have fallen asleep in perfect health. If 
this mask is from Shakespeare, his illness must have been 
short, producing the least possible apparent change of his 
countenance ; and the most fortunate moment afterwards 
was chosen for casting the face." -f" 

Friswell thus compares the Death Mask and the Strat- 
ford bust: "The Mask has a short upper lip, the bust a 
very long one; but this discrepancy is accounted for on 
the supposition that the sculptor had an accident with the 
nose. The nostrils are drawn up, almost painfully; the 
same is visible in the bust. There are several other 
points of resemblance, but these are very minute. 

"On the other hand, the cast differs very widely from 
the bust said to have been cut from it. The nose is ut- 
terly unlike; in the cast it is a fine, thin, aquiline nose, 
and, as there can be no doubt that the cast is from a 
dead face, one feels irresistibly the force of Mrs. Quick- 
ly's simile in the much-contested quotation, as altered by 
Mr. Collier's 'old corrector;' 

* Shakespeare died April 23, 1616, and was buried on the 25th of the same month, 
f A Study of Shakespeare 1 s Portraits. London: 1876, 48010., p. 57. 



THE DEATH MASK. WJ 

" ' His nose was as sharp as a pen on a table of green frieze.' 

"The face is a sharp oval, that of the bust is a blunt 
one; the chin is narrow and pointed, that of the bust 
rounded or rather square, and full of force; the cheeks 
are thin and drawn in, those of the bust full, fat, and al- 
most coarse. Exception has also been taken to the age 
of the person expressed in this cast, some asserting that 
it is too young in look for the years of our poet at his 
death. But here we are in favor of the cast. Some time 
after death the skin seems to relax, the wrinkles to fill 
out, and the expression of care becomes one of quietude 
and peace. There are, moreover, plenty of indications 
of 'crow's feet' and wrinkles at the corners of the eyes; 
and the face, while it wants utterly the jovial look of the 
bust, is certainly one of a person who might have 
suffered, thought, and felt. ****** 

"Lastly, it may be noted in regard to the Mask of the 
face in the custody of Professor Owen, that the extreme 
thinness of the nose and of the cheeks does not so much 
militate against its genuineness as one would suppose. 
The features alter extremely after death with most per- 
sons; and although Shakespeare is said to have died 
after a very short illness, he may have lost much flesh. 
The 'tombe maker,' wishing to exhibit him ad vivum, 
would alter this. As a parallel instance of extreme differ- 






I 1 8 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

ence between life and death, we may cite the cast from 
the features of Napoleon the Great preserved in the In- 
valides. Looking at it, with its drawn face and sharp- 
ened nose, one would rather think it a mask of the fine, 
thin features of Voltaire, than of the round and massive 
head of the conqueror Napoleon I."* 

Some years ago W. J. Thorns suggested that the 
Death Mask might be that of Cervantes, the author of 
Don Quixote, who died in Madrid in 1616. He further 
added that the features of the Mask resembled the pic- 
tures of Cervantes more than Shakespeare. 

The portraits of Cervantes which are extant are all 
founded on a description of his appearance given by the 
author of Don Quixote himself. He describes himself as 
having a long face, chestnut-brown hair, silver-gray beard, 
which was originally of a golden color; a smooth, open 
brow, a clear eye with animated expression, a well-formed, 
aquiline nose, very small mouth, defective teeth, a light 
complexion, and medium height. From this description 
artists have constructed portraits of Cervantes, but no 
picture or engraving of him has any other authority for 
its foundation. 

Cervantes died in the greatest poverty and his burial 

* Life Portraits, etc. London: 1864, 8vo., pp. 17, 26. 



THE DEATH MASK. I 1 9 

was of the plainest description. No ceremony of any 
kind is known to have been observed, and no tombstone 
was erected over his grave. In view of such facts as these, 
is it at all probable that any one should have conceived 
the idea of making a mask from his face? 

Another fact in relation to this matter remains to be 
stated. Cervantes was born in 1547 and did not die 
until 1 61 6. He was therefore sixty-nine years old at 
the time of his death. The latter was caused by dropsy. 
Now the Death Mask resembles the face of a man of 
fifty-two, which was Shakespeare's age, much more nearly 
than sixty-nine, and no one for an instant will think that 
it has any resemblance to the face of one who died of 
dropsy — where the features are much swollen. 

Mr. Page always had the greatest faith in the Death 
Mask. He desired to paint a portrait of Shakespeare, 
and decided to adopt the Mask as the basis of his work, 
using also the Stratford bust, the Droeshout engraving, 
and the Chandos portrait. He first obtained thirteen 
photographs representing the Mask from different points 
of view. From these he made two clay masks of life size, 
but finally he decided to make a colossal mask in plaster. 

This he did, and in another one of similar size he re- 
stored the small portions missing in the original Death 
Mask. In August, 1874, he went to Darmstadt specially 



120 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

to see the Mask. Dr. Becker gave him the fullest facili- 
ties for examining it, and permitted him to take photo- 
graphs of it, to make accurate measurements with cali- 
pers, and impressions from portions of it. On his re- 
turn to New York he made a life-sized bust in plaster, 
from which a bronze casting was finally obtained. 

This bust is very handsome, and is a faithful rendering 
of the Mask. It is of the head and shoulders only. 
Looking at it from the front, one sees how strong the like- 
ness is to the Stratford bust. The opening of the eyes 
by Mr. Page, and giving the face an air of life, instead of 
the painfully sad expression shown in the Death Mask, 
of course has much to do with this; but let any unpreju- 
diced and competent critic place this bust alongside of a 
gray cast of the Stratford one, and he will be struck with 
the resemblance between them. The chief points of differ- 
ence are the short nose of the Stratford bust as compared 
with the longer one of Page's bust, and the more reced- 
ing forehead of the latter in opposition to the prominent 
one of the Stratford bust. 

A beautiful crayon drawing of Page's bust, represent- 
ing the full-face view, was made, it is believed, by the 
artist himself, and the few photographs of this which 
were taken are treasured by their fortunate possessors. 
Numerous photographs of this bust have also been 
taken by Sarony, some of which do not do it justice. 



THE DEATH MASK. 121 

Mr. Page also painted a three-quarter length portrait 
from the Death Mask, which has met with some unfavor- 
able criticism, and which is certainly not as fine as his 
bust. The poet is represented as having risen from a 
chair, and is standing by a table, on which he rests his 
left hand. In his right hand he holds a book, and is 
looking down as if in thought. This shows the eyelids 
drooping, and gives the face a somewhat sleepy expres- 
sion. A large photograph from this picture, by W. 
Kurtz, was published in 1875 by Louis Menger, New 
York. 

J. Niessen drew a crayon portrait of the Death Mask, 
bringing it to life as Page did, but, unlike the latter, he 
confined himself to the Mask alone. Niessen's drawing 
exhibits a three-quarter face, and has a very animated 
expression. Its chief fault is in the too great prominence 
of the chin. Several excellent photographs of it have 
been published, and some of the larger ones are strik- 
ingly handsome. 

Of the Death Mask itself numerous photographs have 
been taken, representing it in many positions. The best 
are those by Page. 



16 



THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 



THE history of this beautiful picture is very unsatis- 
factory, and the little that is known concerning it 
does not establish the fact that it is an authentic portrait 
of Shakespeare. 

In the first place, it is not known who painted it. It is 
generally called the Jansen portrait (though frequently 
known as "the Somerset") and is supposed to have been 
painted by Cornelius Jansen. The latter's name is also 
spelled Janssen or Janssens, and sometimes Johnson — 
although the latter is incorrect. 

This celebrated painter was born in Amsterdam in 
1590. The exact date when he came to England is not 
known, but the first paintings there that can with cer- 
tainty be ascribed to him are dated about 161 8. This is 
two years after Shakespeare died, and to establish the 
fact of this portrait having been painted from life by Jan- 
sen (if it really be a portrait of Shakespeare), it must be 

(122) 






From Mezzotint by Charles Turner. 



THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 



123 



proven that the painter came to England in 1610, or 
prior to that year, for the picture bears that date. With 
the present knowledge of Jansen's history this cannot be 
done. It is true that Sandrart said he was born in Lon- 
don, and that his parents were Flemish,* but Walpole (in 
his Anecdotes of Painting) does not credit this statement, 
while Vertue, and the author of An Essay Towards an 
English School, give Amsterdam as the place of his birth. 
Mr. Ralph N. Wornum in his edition of Walpole's Anec- 
dotes of Painting (London: 1849, 8vo., Vol. I, p. 211,) 
cites Immerzeel, Levens en Werken der Hollandsche 
Kunstschilders as additional authority for the fact of Jan- 
sen having been born in Amsterdam ; and he allows Wal- 
pole's assertion that "Jansen's first works in England are 
dated about 161 8" to pass without comment. This, in a 
profusely annotated and carefully edited book like Wor- 



* The passage from Sandrart, Academia Pictures Nobilis, Caput xx, p. 314, is as 
follows : 

" 232. Cornelius Jansonius Londinensis. 

" Belgis propterea annumerari potest, quia Parentes ejus in Belgico Hispanico nati 
fuerant, et ob tumultus saltern bellicos Londinum concesserant, ubi hunc deinde genu- 
ere filium. Hie cum ad artem pictoriam sese applicuisset, iconibus potissimum con- 
ficiendis opereram dedit; unde in servitia Caroli Stuarti Regis Anglias assumtus, 
Regis atque Reginae, totiusque aula; elegantes elaborabat effigies. Ortis autem inter 
Regem hunc atque Parlamentum dissidiis, adeoque in turbas hasce involuta tota An- 
glia, Jansonius noster una fere cum omnibus celebri oribus artificibus aliis ex Anglia 
discedebat, translato in Hollandiam turn temporis omni felicitatis genere affluentem, 
domicilio: ibidemque postquam icones confecisset egregias plurimas, tandem anno 
1665. Amstelodami ex hac miseriarum valle emigravit." 



124 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

num's, must be taken as an endorsement of what his au- 
thor has said. 

Walpole further states that Jansen took up his resi- 
dence in Blackfriars, London, had much business, and 
his price "for a head was five broad pieces." Wal- 
pole also asserts that "at Sherburn Castle, in Dorset- 
shire, is a head of Elizabeth Wriothesley, eldest daughter 
of Henry, Earl of Southampton, and wife of William, 
Lord Spencer," which is by Jansen. At Charlecote Hall, 
Warwickshire, formerly the residence of Sir Thomas 
Lucy, there is a large painting of Sir Thomas' family, in- 
cluding his wife and six children, which is also said to 
have been painted by Jansen. Dallaway gives a list of 
thirty-two portraits, which he considers were certainly 
Jansen's work during his stay in England, and says that 
there are many others, which are claimed to be by him, 
which closely resemble his style. Dallaway states that 
Jansen copied portraits of the ancestors of several of the 
nobility, "in the possession of others, and those have 
borne his name, which the comparative dates would not 
otherwise warrant." 

In 1 648 he left England and returned to Amsterdam, 
after first going to Midelburg. He died in Amsterdam 
in 1665. 

If Jansen really did come to England early enough to 



THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. I 25 

have painted this portrait of Shakespeare in 1610, he 
must then have been only twenty years old, for it will be 
remembered that he was born in 1590. None of the 
portraits mentioned by Walpole as having been painted 
by Jansen in England are dated this early. Walpole's 
words are: " Jansen' s first works in England are dated 
about 1618." This alleged portrait of Shakespeare is 
not mentioned by Walpole, nor is it given in the un- 
doubted works by Jansen recorded by Dallaway, and 
above referred to. Still the picture bears a strong re- 
semblance in its manner and general treatment to un- 
doubted works of Jansen. It has the same dark back- 
ground that is so often found in his pictures, and its neat, 
clear, and smooth appearance agrees with Jansen's style. 
It is only proper that an assertion of Malone's should 
be here noticed. In his Life of Shakespeare (edition of 
1 82 1, Vol. II, page 429,) he notices Walpole's statement 
with regard to the date of Jansen's arrival in England, 
and states that he (Malone) has a portrait painted by that 
artist, dated 161 1, "which had belonged for more than a 
century to a family that lived at Chelsea." But Malone 
does not give his authority for stating that it is a portrait 
by Jansen, nor any further information concerning it. 
Had he told us who his portrait represented, it could have 
been identified, whereas now his statement has compara- 



126 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

tively little value. It might have been a portrait by Jan- 
sen not painted in England. 

Charles Jennens published an edition of King Lear in 
1770. This was the first time that any editor of Shake- 
speare gave the various readings of the old Quartos and 
Folios on the same page as the text. Capell had pre- 
viously made extensive collations, which were published 
separately from his edition {Notes and Various Readings, 
1779-81), but Jennens first printed the collations on the 
same page with the text. 

Jennens' name did not appear on the title-page. In- 
deed, he did all he could to mislead the reader as to the 
editorship of the volume, as he dedicated it to himself, 
spoke of the patronage extended to the editor by Mr. 
Jennens, and acknowledged the editor's indebtedness to 
that gentleman for access to books in his library. But 
the part of this edition of King Lear which concerns 
the subject of the present essay is the fact that it 
contained a soft and beautiful mezzotint by R. Earlom. 
Under it appeared the inscription : "William Shakespear. 
From an Original Picture by Cornelius Jansen in the 
Collection of C. Jennens Esqr.;" and in the left corner: 
" R. Earlom fecit? 

Jennens' house was at Gopsal, Leicestershire, and the 
publication of this engraving of the Jansen portrait was 



THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 1 27 

the first public announcement that such a picture was in 
existence. Neither Jennens nor any one else ever pub- 
lished any account of where the picture came from, or how 
he obtained it. 

The Critical Review for December, 1770, contained a 
notice of Jennens' edition of King Lear, which is sup- 
posed to have been written by Steevens. In it Earlom's 
mezzotint is thus referred to : 

"King Lear, 8vo., price js. — A mezzotinto of the au- 
thor, by the ingenious Mr. Earlom, (whose industry and 
abilities do honor to the rising arts of Great Britain), is 
placed at the head of it. We should have been glad, in- 
deed, to have some better proofs concerning the authen- 
ticity of the original, than a bare assertion that it was 
painted by Cornelius Jansen, and is to be found in a 
private collection, which we are not easily inclined to 
treat with much respect, especially as we hear it is filled 
with the performances of one of the most contemptible 
daubers of the age." In a note the reviewer gives Wal- 
pole's assertion that Jansen's first works in England are 
dated about 161 8 and refers to the date 1610 on this 
picture. He then proceeds to assert that "the only true 
picture of Shakespeare supposed to be now extant" is 
the Chandos portrait. The review is throughout very 
abusive of Mr. Jennens' edition of King Lear. 



128 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

The subsequent number of the Critical Review (for 
January, 177 1,) contained the following additional notice 
of Earlom's engraving: 

"Concerning this print we will have no controversy; 
but we still adhere to our former opinion, that the soul 
of the mezzotinto is not the soul of Shakespeare. It has 
been the fate of Shakespeare to have many mistakes 
committed both about his soul and body: Pope exhibited 
him under the form of James the First."* 

To these criticisms Jennens replied at length, defend- 
ing his edition, and the engraving which accompanied it. 
Referring to the latter he said: 

" Concerning the authenticity of the picture from which 
the mezzotinto print of Shakespeare was taken, they have 
dropped the controversy; and we are very glad that they 
had so much sense and modesty left as to find out what 
impudence and absurdity they have been guilty of, in 
calling in question a picture they have never seen, and 
without any provocation abusing a person whom the 
generality of the world have thought fit to esteem an 
artist that excels in the higher branches of painting, and 
of whose performances Mr. Jennens has many, though his 

* This refers to the engraving by G. Vertue, dated 1721, which was published in 
Pope's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1725, 4to. It is undoubtedly a picture of 
James I., though purporting to represent Shakespeare. 



THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. I2Q. 

collection cannot be said to be filled with them (as the 
Critical Reviewers say they hear), their number being 
inconsiderable when compared with the whole collection. 

"They say, 'we still adhere to our former opinion, that 
the soul of the mezzotinto is not the soul of Shake- 
speare.' Who said it was? The soul of a picture cannot 
be the soul of a man ; but a picture may be like a man's 
soul, when it is made to express those qualities and dis- 
positions which we discover him by his writings to have 
been possessed of." * 

Here Mr. Jennens ended, and he gives no information 
as to where the picture came from, or even the names of 
any of the other pictures in his possession which he con- 
sidered to also be by Jansen. 

It is to be presumed that Jennens obtained this portrait 
sometime after 1761, because in a book then published, 
entitled London and its Environs, a. careful catalogue of 
the pictures at his house in Great Ormond Street is 
given. In this catalogue the only portrait of Shake- 
speare mentioned is a drawing in crayon, by Vander 



* The Tragedy of King Lear, as lately published, Vindicated from the Abuse of 
the Critical Reviewers ; and the Wonderful Genius and Abilities of those Gentlemen 
for Criticism, set forth, celebrated, and extolled, by the Editor of King Lear. Lon- 
don: 1772, 8vo., p. 36. 

17 



I30 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Gucht, from the Chandos portrait. In 1 7 70, it will be re- 
membered, the mezzotint by Earlom from the picture, in 
Jennens' possession, was published, so that in all proba- 
bility he acquired it between 1761 and 1770, because his 
elegant residence at Gopsal, in Leicestershire, was built, 
it is believed, shortly before 1770. In 1773 Jennens 
died, and the Gopsal house passed into the hands of 
Mr. Penn Asheton Curzon, who was the husband of a 
niece of Mr. Jennens. 

Boaden, prior to 1824, inquired of Earl Howe, the then 
owner of Gopsal, if the picture was in the collection there, 
and was informed that the only portrait of Shakespeare 
in the collection was the crayon drawing by Vander 
Gucht, from the Chandos portrait, above referred to. 
After further search Boaden found it in the possession 
of the Duke of Somerset. From this nobleman it ob- 
tained the name it sometimes bears — "the Somerset 
portrait." 

Boaden further informs us that the Duke of Somerset 
received the portrait as a present from the then Duke 
of Hamilton, and he continues, he has "unquestionable 
authority" (which, unfortunately, he does not give,) "for 
saying that it came up with a considerable part of the 
collection from Gopsal, and was bought by Woodburn 



THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 131 

for His Grace the Duke of Hamilton, somewhere about 
fifteen years back." * 

This would make the date of Woodburn's purchase 
about 1 809, as the above statement of Boaden's was pub- 
lished in 1824. In 181 1 S. Woodburn published a 
wretched print engraved by R. Dunkarton, from the 
Jansen portrait, which is stated to be "from an original 
picture formerly in the possession of Prince Rupert, now 
in the collection of His Grace, Archibald, Duke of Hamil- 
ton and Brandon &c, &c, at Marylebone Park, London." 
The face is an entire failure and represents the com- 
plexion as dark as a mulatto. The expression is much 
altered, the ruff badly drawn, the costume blotched all 
over, and the hair looks like a wig. 

This would seem to establish, beyond all doubt, that 
in 181 1, the Jansen portrait was in the possession of the 
then Duke of Hamilton. 

Wivell tells us that he called on Samuel Woodburn, 
the son of the Mr. Woodburn who Boaden states pur- 
chased the picture for the Duke of Hamilton. Wood- 
burn's account, as given by Wivell, is that the portrait 
formerly belonged to Prince Rupert, who left it to his 
natural daughter Ruperta. This lady was the child of 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 193. 



I32 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Margaret Hughes, the mistress of the prince. She mar- 
ried Mr. Emmanuel Scroope Howe. Their descendants 
sold all the pictures, including the Jansen portrait, to a 
Mr. Spackman, a picture dealer, from whom the father 
of Mr. Samuel Woodburn purchased it. He kept it for 
two years, and then sold it to the Duke of Hamilton, 
who afterwards presented it to his daughter, the Duch- 
ess of Somerset. It will be noticed that Woodburn's 
account ignores Mr. Jennens' possession of the picture. 
Boaden had the picture taken down from the wall for 
his inspection, and says that it is on panel, and that the 
oak on which it is painted had then (prior to 1824,) com- 
menced to split in two places. He continues: "It is no 
made up questionable thing, like so many that are foisted 
upon us. It is an early picture by Cornelius Jansen, 
tenderly and beautifully painted. Time seems to have 
treated it with infinite kindness; for it is quite pure, and 
exhibits its original surface. The epithet gentle, which 
contemporary fondness attached to the name of Shake- 
speare, seems to be fully justified by the likeness be- 
fore us. The expression of the countenance really 
equals the demand of the fancy; and you feel that every- 
thing was possible to a being so happily constituted."* 



* An Inquiry, etc. London, 1824, 8vo., p. 194. 




THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 1 33 

Wivell (prior to 1827) also saw this picture, and says 
that the panel on which it is painted is split in two places, 
one of which is in the forehead. 

The picture is beautifully painted in a neat and delicate 
manner, and of all representations of Shakespeare it is 
the most artistic. The expression is singularly soft and 
mild and the face very refined. It more nearly resembles 
the Death Mask than any of the other portraits. The 
costume is exceedingly rich, the ruff very elaborate, and 
it has been supposed to be either a theatrical costume or 
a court dress. 

Immediately above the head, on a scroll, in Earlom's 
mezzotint, are the words "Ut magus." These are evi- 
dently part of Horace's Epistle to Augustus, to be found 
in Epistle I, Book 2, lines 208 to 213: 

" Ac ne forte putes, me, quae facere ipse recusem, 

Cum recte tractent alii, laudare maligne ; 

Ille per extentum funem mihi posse videtur 

Ire poeta; meum qui pectus inaniter angit, 

Irritat, mulcet, falsis terroribus, implet, 

Ut magus ; et modo me Thebis, modo ponit Athenis." 

Boaden speaks of the words "Ut magus" as being on 
the Jansen portrait, but Wivell expressly denies this, and 
states that there is nothing except the age of the person 



134 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

represented, and the date that it was painted.* He thinks 
that Boaden was misled by the fact of the words "Ut 
magus" being on Earlom's print. How came it then, that 
Earlom put them there, or was it a conceit of Jennens? 

Friswell repeats Boaden's statement as to these words 
being on the portrait. 

On January i, 1824, an engraving was published by 
G. Smeeton, lettered as follows: "Shakespeare, En- 
graved by R. Cooper, with Permission, from the Original 
in the Collection of John Wilson Croker, Esqr., M. P." 
It is in an oval, within a square, and is very well en- 
graved. Boaden saw this print, and was struck with its 
resemblance to the Jansen portrait. He gives the fol- 
lowing account of an interview he had with Mr. Croker: 

"Mr. Croker with the utmost readiness indulged my 
curiosity, and agreeably surprised me by the sight of an 
absolute facsimile of the Duke's picture. I see no differ- 
ence whatever in the execution — the character of course 
is identical. It should, however, be observed, that al- 
though the Duke's picture is on panel, Mr. Croker's is 
on canvas. I must add to this remark, that the picture 
on canvas has no date or age painted upon it, and that the 
portrait is an oval within a square ; in other words, the 

* An Inquiry, etc. London : 1827, 8vo., p. 242. 



THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 1 35 

angles are rounded off. The mode, Mr. Croker tells 
me, in which the picture was discovered, was singularly 
remarkable. It was hidden behind a panel, in one of the 
houses lately * pulled down near the site of Old Suffolk 
Street, and he purchased it in a state of comparative filth 
and decay. It has been very judiciously cleaned and 
lined, but no second pencil has ever been allowed to 
touch it. This discovery of pictures behind wainscoting 
is not unusual, particularly in the country. It was once 
the practice in plastered walls, to insert frames of the 
same color, and these formed all the decorations of the 
pictures. Subsequently when it was determined to wain- 
scot an apartment, the picture was often become so sal- 
low by time and dirt, as to be hardly visible, and was so 
deemed not worth the trouble of extraction, and there- 
fore covered along with the wall which inclosed it. An 
instance of this kind comes positively within my own 
knowledge. 

"Had it been possible, I should have pursued the in- 
quiry to the ascertainment of the identical house from 
which it came, and thus at all events have tried to trace 
out its ancient possessor. But Mr. Croker could give 
me no further detail. He received the account without 

* This statement was published in 1824. 



I36 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

suspicion, for the picture was obviously ancient, and from 
its condition, had as obviously been hidden. He bought 
it liberally, and has reason to congratulate himself upon 
the acquisition."* What has become of Mr. Croker's 
copy is not known. 

Many engravers have tried their skill in copying the 
Jansen portrait. Earlom was the first. His beautiful 
mezzotint, published in 1770, as the frontispiece of Jen- 
nens' edition of King Lear, has already been referred to. 
Earlom's copy, though very well engraved, is not a faithful 
representation of the picture. He has made the forehead 
lower, altered the shape of the head, and changed the 
mouth. The costume is but faintly indicated in this print. 
The scroll with "Ut magus" which appears in this mez- 
zotint has already been referred to. 

Gardner next engraved a small oval plate for The 
Literary Magazine, which was published June 1, 1793, 
by J. Good. He reversed the head, changed the expres- 
sion, and preserved none of the beauty of Earlom's mez- 
zotint, from which he evidently copied. It is a very poor 
engraving, and omits the "Ut magus," the date, and the 
age. 

Woodburn's print, engraved by R. Dunkarton, and 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 197. 



THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 1 37 

published in 1811, has been noticed above. The date 
and age are given, but the "Ut magus" is omitted. 

R. Page engraved a small plate representing this por- 
trait in a frame, which was published by John Bumpus, 
in 1822. Underneath is engraved "Shakspeare, from his 
monument in St. Mary's Church, Stratford." Its like- 
ness to the Jansen portrait is plainly recognizable, and 
hence the absurdity of the statement that it is from the 
Stratford bust; and the publisher evidently did not know 
that the proper name of the church is the Holy Trinity. 
No date, age, or inscription is given in this engraving. 

R. Cooper next copied this picture, circa 1824, with in- 
different results. The date, age, and inscription are 
omitted. This plate must not be confounded with an- 
other, by the same engraver, published January 1, 1824, 
by G. Smeeton. The latter is from Mr. Croker's copy 
of the Jansen, and has been already described. 

The finest engraving ever made from the Jansen por- 
trait is undoubtedly Charles Turner's magnificent mez- 
zotint, published in 1824, by Robert Triphook, and form- 
ing one of the illustrations of Boaden's Inquiry. It is 
beautifully engraved in Turner's best manner, and seen 
in an India proof, as published in the quarto edition of 
Boaden's work, it is superb. Turner did not give the 
costume at all ; the head and ruff stand out in bold relief 
18 



I38 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

on the black background, and the figure can only be 
faintly traced. The age and date are given very indis- 
tinctly, and the scroll bearing the words "Ut magus" is 
on the margin of the print, above the head. A photo- 
graph of this mezzotint was published in Friswell's Life 
Portraits, etc., London: 1864, 8vo. 

To turn from this beautiful mezzotint to Page's com- 
monplace little engraving, published by Duncombe, in 

1826, is a great change. He gives the date and age, but 
omits the "Ut magus." 

T. Wright copied Earlom's print for Wivell's Inquiry, 

1827, in which his engraving appeared. It is a poor, 
spiritless performance, though not utterly lacking in merit. 
Wivell, however, says that "the etching was first done 
from Earlom's print, and by permission of his Grace the 
Duke of Somerset, Mr. Wright and myself have inspected 
the original painting, from which the plate has been fin- 
ished, and is what I conceive it to be, a faithful represen- 
tation of it." * The age and date are given, but the scroll 
and inscription are omitted. Traces of the "Ut magus" 
can be faintly seen, but they have been erased by en- 
graving over them. 

A miserable plate, engraved by H. Robinson, was pub- 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 244. 



THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 1 39 

lished by Fisher, Son & Co., in 1835. It appeared in 
Wheler's edition of Shakespeare, dated 1834, although 
the print has 1835 on it. There is a facsimile of the 
poet's signature under it. 

In Religious and Moral Sentences Culled from the 
Works of Shakespeare, London : 1 847, 8vo., there ap- 
peared quite a good lithographic copy of Earlom's print. 
It is by J. R. Jobbins, and gives the age, date, scroll, 
and inscription. 

About this time Griffin & Co. published a well-exe- 
cuted line engraving from this picture. No engraver's 
name is given, but whoever he was he has managed to 
change the face so much that it is utterly unlike the por- 
trait. No date, age, or inscription is given. 

A curious little engraving by Lacour, a Frenchman, 
published circa 1850, is very unlike the picture it is in- 
tended to represent. No age, date, or inscription is 
shown in the engraving. 

About this time a print engraved by Hopwood ap- 
peared. He has materially changed the expression of 
the face, and taken liberties with the costume. No date, 
age, scroll, nor inscription is given. 

G. Greatbach was very unsuccessful in copying this 
portrait. His plate was published by John Tallis & Co. 
in their edition of Shakespeare, London and New York, 



I40 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

royal 8vo., 1851 (?) The age, date, scroll, and inscrip- 
tion are omitted. 

Quite a good copy from Earlom's mezzotint was pub- 
lished in Charles and Mary Cowden Clarke's edition of 
Shakespeare, London: 1865-69 (?) No engraver's 
name is stated, and though the age and date are given, 
the scroll and inscription are omitted. 



%%t tftlton portrait 



From Engraving by T. Trotter. 



• •-*'*■ "If",. 




v 



THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 



ON August 9, 1 794, William Richardson, a print-seller, 
of Castle Street, Leicester Square, London, in- 
formed George Steevens, the well-known Shakespearian 
editor and critic, that S. Felton, of Curzon Street, Lon- 
don, had in his possession an old portrait, which appeared 
to him to be similar to the Droeshout engraving in the 
folio editions of Shakespeare. Steevens took such deep 
interest in everything relating to the great poet, whose 
works he has done so much to illustrate, that he was nat- 
urally very anxious to see this portrait. Mr. Richard- 
son was subsequently allowed by Mr. Felton to bring it 
to Steevens and show it to him. The latter was much 
struck with the resemblance between the portrait and 
Droeshout' s plate, and believed, with many others, that it 
was the original picture from which Droeshout made his 
engraving. Steevens tells us that the latter "could fol- 
low the outlines of a face with tolerable accuracy, but 

(hi) 



142 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

usually left them as hard as if hewn out of a rock. 
Thus, in the present instance, he has servilely trans- 
ferred the features of Shakespeare from the painting to 
the copper, omitting every trait of the mild and benevo- 
lent character which his portrait so decidedly affords." 

It appears that Mr. Felton purchased this portrait, on 
May 31, 1792, for five guineas, from J. Wilson, who had 
a museum in King Street, St. James Square. In the cata- 
logue of "The fourth Exhibition and Sale by private Con- 
tract at the European Museum, King Street, St. James' 
Square, 1792" appears the following entry: "No 359. A 
curious portrait of Shakespeare, painted in 1597." If 
Mr. Wilson really believed that it was a genuine por- 
trait of Shakespeare, painted by a contemporary of the 
poet's, in 1597, it was very singular that he should have 
been willing to part with it for the small sum of five 
guineas. 

After its purchase by Mr. Felton, the latter desired to 
obtain some further information concerning its history, 
and applied to Mr. Wilson for details as to where he had 
obtained it. In reply the latter wrote him as follows: 

"To Mr. S. Felton, Drayton, Shropshire: 

"Sir, — The Head of Shakespeare was purchased out 
of an old house, known by the sign of the Boar, in East- 



THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 1 43 

cheap, London, where Shakespeare and his friends used 
to resort, and, report says, was painted by a player of 
that time, but whose name I have not been able to learn. 

"I am, Sir, with great regard, 

"Your most obed't. servant, 

"J. Wilson. 
"Sept. 11, 1792." 

Wilson, in giving this account, seems to have over- 
looked the great fire which occurred in London in 1 666, 
which entirely destroyed Eastcheap. It is not at all 
probable that a picture would have been saved from a 
conflagration which Evelyn, in his Memoirs, says "was 
so universal, and the people so astonish' d, that, from 
the beginning, I know not by what despondency or fate, 
they hardly stirr'd to quench it; so that there was noth- 
ing heard or seene but crying out and lamentation, 
running about like distracted creatures, without at all 
attempting to save even their goods, such a strange 
consternation there was upon them." 

On August ii, 1794, two years after this letter to 
Mr. Felton, Mr. Wilson told Steevens a very different 
story. The latter says that Wilson assured him "that 
this portrait was found between four and five years ago 
at a broker's shop in the Minories, by a man of fashion, 



144 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

whose name must be concealed ; that it afterwards came 
(attended by the Eastcheap story, etc.) with a part of 
that gentleman's collection of paintings, to be sold at the 
European Museum, and was exhibited there for about 
three months, during which time it was seen by Lord 
Leicester and Lord Orford, who both allowed it to be a 
genuine picture of Shakespeare." 

What peculiar qualifications these gentlemen pos- 
sessed which enabled them to judge of the genuineness 
of this portrait is not stated, but Steevens takes occasion 
to remark that "it is natural to suppose that the muti- 
lated state of it prevented either of their Lordships from 
becoming its purchaser." On the contrary, they allowed 
Mr. Wilson to buy it for a mere song — as he must have 
done to enable him to sell it to Mr. Felton for five 
guineas! It would seem that if these gentlemen really 
believed it to be a genuine portrait of Shakespeare they 
would not have let it be so sacrificed ; for the mutilated 
state of which Steevens speaks, consisted in its having 
had a portion of the panel of wood on which it is painted 
split off, and the picture cut down until the head and a 
portion of the ruff alone remained. The entire coun- 
tenance, however, was perfect and in fair condition. 

Felton sold this picture (which still bears his name) 
to Mr. G. Nichol for forty guineas. A copy was made 



W iFelton portrait 



From Engraving by T. Trotter. 



THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 1 45 

from it by Josiah Boydell for Steevens about this time, 
which remained in the latter' s possession until his death. 
The original portrait was owned for a long time by Mr. 
Nichol, and he is said to have refused one hundred 
guineas for it, which was offered by Lord Ellesmere. 

Subsequently it was in the possession of a Mr. West- 
macott, a solicitor, of London, who died in 1861 or 1862. 
On April 30, 1870, it was offered for sale at public 
auction in London, and was bought in at fifty guineas. 
It is not known in whose possession the picture now is. 

Such is the history of this portrait, and it will be seen 
that it is not at all trustworthy. Boswell does not hesi- 
tate to say that "there are not, indeed, wanting those who 
suspect that Mr. Steevens was better acquainted with the 
history of its manufacture, and that there was a deeper 
meaning in his words, when he tells us, 'he was instru- 
mental in procuring it,' than he would have wished to be 
generally understood; and that the fabricator of the 
Hardiknutian tablet had been trying his ingenuity upon 
a more important scale. My venerable friend, the late 
Mr. Bindley, of the Stamp-office, was reluctantly per- 
suaded, by his importunity, to attest his opinion in favor 
of this picture, which he did in deference to the judgment 
of one so well acquainted with Shakespeare ; but happen- 
ing to glance his eye upon Mr. Steevens' face, he in- 

19 



I46 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

stantly perceived, by the triumph depicted in the peculiar 
expression of his countenance, that he had been de- 
ceived."* 

The portrait is painted on wood, as before stated. On 
the back of the panel there is the inscription in old-style 
writing: "Gul. Shakspear, 1597. R. B." The last letters 
were at first supposed to be "R. N.," but Abraham 
Wivell (prior to 1827,) when oiling the back of the picture 
to preserve the wood, discovered that they were really 
"R. B." Wivell at once concluded that they stood for 
Richard Burbage, the actor, who was Shakespeare's 
contemporary, and who is known to have also had some 
skill as a painter. The final "e" in the poet's name has 
been lost in cutting off a portion of the wood on which 
the portrait is painted. 

The size of this panel is eleven inches high, and a little 
over eight inches wide. Boaden says that when he "first 
saw this head at Richardson's, I found that it had been 
a good deal rubbed under the eyes ; but that there were 
no circular cracks upon the surface, which time is sure to 
produce. There was a splitting of the crust of the picture 
down the nose, which seemed the operation of' heat, 
rather than age. I remember the difficult task Mr. Boy- 

* Advertisement to Boswell's edition of Malone's Shakespeare. London : 1821, 
8vo., Vol. I, p. xxvii. 



THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 1 47 

dell described, when he afterwards, by softening the paint, 
and pressing with the palette-knife, succeeded in fixing 
these warped and dissevered parts to the oak panel, on 
which they originally reposed."* 

To this Wivell adds : "The condition of this picture is 
greatly against its appearance to those who are not able 
to discriminate and make allowance for such a state, as 
it is covered all over with dark spots, occasioned by 
being a long time in a damp place without varnish." -j- 

The picture is well drawn and well colored. The ex- 
pression is singularly calm and benevolent, and it has 
been much admired. It resembles the Droeshout en- 
graving more than any other portrait, and by many has 
been believed to be a copy of it. On the other hand, 
Steevens thought that it was the original of that engrav- 
ing. The forehead is much higher than in the Droe- 
shout, and the expression somewhat different, but, as 
before stated, its resemblance is greater to that portrait 
than to any other. 

The copy made by Josiah Boydell, for Steevens, which 
has been already referred to, was found by Wivell, (prior 
to 1827,) in the possession of a Mr. Harris, of London. 
On the back of this copy is the following: 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 104. 
f An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 45. 



I48 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

"May, 1797. 
"Copied by Josiah Boydell, at my request, from the 
remains of the only genuine Portrait of William Shak- 
speare. "George Steevens. 

"The original had belonged to Mr. Felton, and is now 
in the Shakspeare Gallery, Pall Mall." 

Mr. Harris bought it at the sale of Steevens' effects 
for "about three guineas" as he informed Wivell. The 
latter adds that "it is a very good copy as far as regards 
the drawing, but the coloring is not so well."* 

In 1794, William Richardson, the print-seller above 
alluded to, issued "proposals" for the publication of two 
engraved plates of this portrait. These proposals are 
dated November 5, 1794, and must either have been 
published before that, or else the date on the engravings 
is incorrect, for when the latter appeared they bore the 
date November 1, 1794. Both plates are five and three- 
quarter inches high and four and a half inches wide, ex- 
clusive of the margin. Plate No. 1 represents the pic- 
ture as it actually is, showing how a portion of the hair 
and ruff have been split off with the board on which it 
is painted. The panel has also been cut off just under 
the ruff, leaving only a very small portion of the dress 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 119. 



THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 1 49 

visible. In this engraving the portion of the hair and 
ruff cut off have been added in outline, and the figure 
below the shoulders, in the dress shown in the Droe- 
shout engraving, also added. 

Plate No. 2 gives the head exactly as in the former, 
but the portions of the missing hair and ruff are added, 
and the dress given as in plate No. I, but not in outline. 
Both plates are very well engraved by T. Trotter, and 
give perhaps the best representation of this picture that 
can be expected. 

Steevens, as before stated, took the greatest interest 
in the Felton portrait, and wrote the preface and supple- 
ment to Richardson's Proposals for the publication of 
these plates. When they were finally published he pre- 
sented his friend Mr. Chauvel with a pair of the prints as 
a Christmas present, and wrote on the bottom of one of 
them "Mr. Chauvel," and on the other "Mr. Chauvel. 
G. S. Deer. 24." These two engravings are in the 
present writer's collection. 

In 1796 Richardson again had this portrait engraved, 
this time by J. Godfrey. It is not nearly as good as 
Trotter's plates, being much larger and coarser, and is a 
poor representation of the original. 

When Isaac Reed's edition of Shakespeare was pub- 
lished, in 1803, by J. Johnson, etc., there was prefixed to it 



I50 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

an oval-shaped engraving of this portrait by J. Neagle 
(March 31, 1803), which is fairly well done, but the 
expression is not as soft as in the original. Neagle 
changed the stiff ruff somewhat to make it look more 
like a linen collar, and the costume that he has added is 
a plain black gown, entirely different from the Droeshout 
engraving. 

The same year (1803) C. Warren engraved a smaller 
plate, also in an oval like the preceding one, and evi- 
dently copied from it. It is not as well done, however. 
It is dated May 1, 1803, and was issued by the same 
publishers as the former (J. Johnson, etc.). 

John Thurston made a drawing from this portrait, 
which was engraved by Charles Warren (the engraver 
of the preceding plate), and published by James Wallis, 
July 22, 1805. The head is turned the opposite way to 
the original, and the nose is very unlike the portrait. 

I. Thomson engraved a plate, about this time, which 
is apparently copied from the preceding one, as it has 
the same defect in the nose, and the head is also re- 
versed. It has no name of any publisher nor any date. 

Manley Wood's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1806, 
8vo., contained a well engraved plate by C. Warren. 
The plate is dated May 1, 1806, and was published by 
George Kearsley. It is a fair copy of Trotter's plate 



THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 151 

No. 2 (1794). It is almost square, and above are em- 
blematical ornaments, while below is "W. Shakspeare." 
The dress is taken from the Droeshout as is also the 
case in Trotter's plate. It is said to be "from the origi- 
nal picture," but it is such an exact copy of Trotter's en- 
graving that the statement may well be doubted. 

A very poor print, engraved by J. Collyer, was pub- 
lished by J. Nichols and Son, etc., Nov. 30, 18 10. It 
appeared in the edition of Shakespeare, from Steevens' 
text, published in 18 n. It is very coarsely done, and 
the expression has been much changed. 

Reed's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1813, 8vo., 
contained an engraving of this portrait, by W. Holl. It 
is of the head only, like the original, and is done in dots. 
It is fair, but the soft expression of the original has not 
been fully preserved. It is surrounded by a neat frame. 
The plate is dated Dec. 26, 18 12, and is published "by 
F. C. & J. Rivington, & the other Proprietors." 

A very curious engraving by W. T. Fry, published by 
Longman & Co., 181 9, entirely misrepresents the origi- 
nal. The figure which the engraver has added is out of 
all proportion, and the face has a sleepy expression. 

In 1822 Cosmo Armstrong engraved a small plate from 
this portrait in which the expression is very different from 
the painting. 



I52 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

In 1827 Wivell made an engraving of this picture for 
his work on the portraits of Shakespeare [An Inquiry, 
etc., London: 1827, 8vo.), and had nearly completed it 
when it met with an accident which ruined the plate. He 
then employed J. Cochran to engrave one in its stead, 
which was published in the work referred to. It is very 
well done, except that the ruff is out of place. The very 
high forehead of the original painting is well represented 
in this engraving, and the soft, mild expression of the 
eyes capitally rendered. It is surrounded by a neatly 
engraved border, and is a print sure to attract attention 
among a large collection of engravings of Shakespeare 
by its striking character. 

This plate has been copied by H. Wright Smith for R. 
Grant White's edition of Shakespeare, Vol. I, published 
by Little, Brown & Co., Boston, in 1865. It also ap- 
peared in White's Memoirs of the Life of William Shake- 
speare, issued by the same publishers in 1866. Mr. 
Smith's plate is a beautiful engraving, and finer work 
has seldom been done; but he has made the fore- 
head lower than in the Cochran plate and in the painting, 
given a more animated expression to the eyes, and cor- 
rected Cochran's mistake about the ruff. It has the same 
border as the latter, and is one of the finest engravings 
of a portrait of Shakespeare that has ever been executed. 



W$t Stratfrrir $otrttrait 



From Photograph of Original by Cundall, Downes & Co. 



THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. 



IN the latter part of the year i860, Mr. Simon Collins, 
a well-known restorer of pictures, residing in Lon- 
don, went to Stratford-upon-Avon, to remove the white 
paint which had been daubed over the bust of Shake- 
speare in the chancel of the Church of the Holy Trinity, 
in that town. After he had completed his work, Mr. 
William Oakes Hunt, who was then Town Clerk, em- 
ployed him to clean some old pictures in his possession. 
In the upper portion of the latter gentleman's house 
Mr. Collins found an old portrait, in a dilapidated state, 
representing a man with a large black beard and mous- 
tache. The beard nearly covered the face, and was so 
arranged as to utterly disfigure the picture. Mr. Hunt 
stated that the picture had been in the possession of his 
family for more than a hundred years, and that his 
grandfather had purchased it at a sale at Clopton House. 
So little was it regarded that Mr. Hunt had used it for a 
target, at which to shoot arrows, when he was a boy. 
20 (153) 



154 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

Something about the appearance of the portrait, how- 
ever, led Mr. Collins to believe that another picture was 
underneath the outer covering of paint; and he there- 
fore commenced cleaning a portion of the face, when 
the beard, which almost entirely covered it, disappeared. 
He then tried the experiment of cleaning a part of the 
breast of the figure, and found underneath a black and 
red costume similar to that on the bust of Shakespeare 
in the chancel of the Holy Trinity Church. During this 
cleaning the Rev. Mr. Grenville, then Vicar of Stratford, 
Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Hunt, the owner of the picture, and 
other residents of the town, were present. 

It was afterwards taken to London by Mr. Collins to 
complete the restoration. When this was completed, 
the picture was placed on exhibition in Mr. Collins' 
studio, and the following handbill was given to those 
who went to see it: 

"PORTRAIT OF SHAKESPEARE. 

"A portrait of Shakespeare, painted on canvas, three- 
quarter life-size, which has been in the family of W. O. 
Hunt, Esq., Town Clerk of Stratford-upon-Avon, for a 
century, has recently been put into the hands of Mr. 
Simon Collins, of 6 Somerset Street, Portman Square, 
London (now on a visit to Stratford), who, after remov- 



THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. 1 55 

ing the dirt, damp, and repaint by which it was obscured, 
has brought to light what he pronounces to be a genuine 
portrait of the Immortal Bard. 

"The picture bears a remarkable resemblance to the 
bust in the chancel of Stratford Church, according to the 
description given of it before it was painted white at the 
request of Mr. Malone in 1793, viz.: 'the eyes being of 
a light hazel, and the hair and beard auburn, the dress 
consisted of a scarlet doublet, over which was a loose 
black gown without sleeves.' 

"It is important to observe that this is the only picture 
ever discovered which thus represents the Poet in this 
dress, and it calls to mind a remark made by Mr. Wheler, 
in his History of Stratford-upon-Avon, of the probability 
of a picture being in existence from which the monu- 
mental bust was taken ; which suggestion Mr. Wivell, in 
his Inquiry into the History and Antiquities of the Shake- 
speare Portraits, quotes, and appears to adopt. 

"This picture came into the hands of the present 
owner (through his father) from his grandfather, Wil- 
liam Hunt, Esq., to whom it probably passed, with some 
other old paintings, in the purchase of his house from 
the Clopton Family in 1758. The house had then been 
uninhabited for several years, since the death of its for- 
mer owner and occupier, Edward Clopton Esq. (nephew 
of Sir Hugh Clopton), which took place in 1753." 



156 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

When Mr. Collins had finished cleaning the picture, 
but before it was taken to London to be "restored," 
some photographs of it were taken by a Stratford photo- 
grapher. Using one of these photographs, Mr. John Ra- 
bone, of Birmingham, had a large painting executed, of 
the same size as the original portrait. This copy is of 
great value, as it represents the original as it was immedi- 
ately after Mr. Collins cleaned it, and before it had been 
retouched in the process of restoration. Mr. Rabone 
states that the latter process has caused much alteration 
in the original portrait. His copy agrees in all particu- 
lars with the photographs taken by the Stratford pho- 
tographer immediately after the portrait was cleaned. 
In his copy the lines follow this first photograph exactly, 
and the expression of the face, as it originally was, is 
faithfully reproduced. The pose of the figure is now 
somewhat different, and the face has been altered. 

When the picture was returned to Stratford, after 
undergoing this "restoration," the members of the Bir- 
mingham Archaeological Association went there to see 
it. In a lecture lately delivered in Birmingham, by Mr. 
Rabone, on the portraits of Shakespeare, he referred to 
this visit and said: "It was in the little theatre which 
then stood on the site of New Place, and beside it was 
placed a model of the bust in the church, in colors, just 



THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. I 57 

as it had been left from the cleaning. Mr. Collins, who 
was present, on being questioned about the picture, said 
he was not there to say what he had done to it, except 
that he had used every means of his art to make the 
picture as perfect and as near as was possible to what it 
was originally, and all he had to say was that the results 
were before them. It was in a very dilapidated condi- 
tion, and he had done his best to restore it. A good 
deal of criticism took place. It was very evident that 
there was considerable similarity between the painting 
and the bust. The colors were the same, and the creases 
and folds in the dress in the one exactly resembled those 
in the other, from which it was concluded that the paint- 
ing had been copied from the bust, or the bust from the 
painting. It was pointed out that the painting contained 
numerous little life-like points which were altogether 
wanting in the bust, and therefore it was generally 
thought more probable that, as the bust had been made 
by a mere 'tomb-maker,' as Gerard Johnson was, it 
would be unlikely that those delicate little touches in the 
painting should be reproduced by him in the stone."* 

When the picture was first discovered it excited great 
interest, and much discussion took place as to whether 

* A Lecture on Some Portraits of Shakespeare, etc. Birmingham : 1 884, 8vo., p. 10. 



I58 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

it was the original picture from which the Stratford bust 
was made, or only a copy from the latter. For there is 
certainly a very strong resemblance between the two, 
and the costume of the one is exactly reproduced in the 
other. The curls of the hair, the arrangement of the 
beard, and the general coloring of the two also exactly 
correspond. Such resemblance shows that either the 
bust was made from the picture, or the picture from the 
bust, unless indeed both were made from life. That the 
bust was sculptured during Shakespeare's lifetime no 
one has suggested — on the contrary, the universal opin- 
ion is that it was made after his death, and many have 
thought from a death mask. The majority of those who 
have discussed this subject have said that the Stratford 
portrait was painted long after the bust was made, and 
that the picture was copied from the bust. This the pres- 
ent writer thinks exceedingly probable — indeed almost 
certain, although not capable of actual proof. The por- 
trait does not seem to be of sufficient age to warrant any 
other conclusion. 

In 1769 Garrick was the originator of a "jubilee" at 
Stratford-upon-Avon, during which there occurred proces- 
sions of persons representing the characters of Shake- 
speare's plays, dramatic performances in a building 
erected for that purpose, and other observances. It was 



THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. 1 59 

a great time for Stratford, and elaborate preparations 
were made by the townspeople, as well as by those who 
came from London. It is very probable that the Strat- 
ford portrait was painted from the bust in the church at 
that time, and afterwards preserved, either for its own 
merits, or as a relic of the jubilee. 

But how can the strange condition in which it was 
found by Mr. Collins be accounted for? Who painted 
over the face with a full beard, and disguised the red and 
black costume of the figure? The high respectability 
of Mr. William Oakes Hunt and his father, in whose pos- 
session the portrait was for many years, forbids the idea 
of any deception from that quarter. It has been sug- 
gested that it was thus painted over in Puritanical times 
to preserve it, as it is well known many other portraits 
have been treated when players were unpopular. The 
apparent modernness of the portrait, however, renders 
this conjecture most improbable. 

Mr. Charles Wright was a strong believer in the gen- 
uineness of this picture. The Athenceum of March 30, 
1 86 1, contained an article criticising the portrait very 
severely, in which the writer stated that it had "no merit 
of any kind, not even that of age ; it is a modern daub, 
possibly a tavern sign, a 'Shakespeare's Head,' probably 
made up for some purpose connected with the jubilee." 



l6o THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

This criticism offended Mr. Wright, who wrote a letter 
to the London Times, dated April 2, 1861. In this he 
takes the Athenceum writer to task. Subsequently he 
wrote two other letters to The Times, dated April 12, 
and April 22, 1861, neither of which that journal pub- 
lished. He, therefore, printed them in pamphlet form, 
and also a longer pamphlet on the Stratford portrait, 
dated May 31, 1861. In all of these he warmly advo- 
cates the claims of this portrait to be considered as an 
original one. 

About this time Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps wrote: 
"It is very clear that either the bust was copied from the 
painting, or the painting from the bust; but having seen 
the picture, I cannot for a moment longer imagine that 
the former position can be ultimately established, and I 
fancy that it is one somewhat unlikely in itself to be cor- 
rect, even were the painting of the requisite antiquity. 
I have little, if any, doubt that this portrait was copied 
from the bust, at the very earliest, some time in the first 
half of the last century, but more probably, as Mr. Dixon 
has suggested, about the time of the Jubilee. As a me- 
mento of the last-named event, it is one of interest and 
even of pecuniary value ; but that interest and value will 
be absorbed in an estimation of another kind if an at- 
tempt be made to give it the precedence of the bust. I 



THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. l6l 

can only say that Gertrude's son never so astonished his 
mother as the sight of that picture astonished me, when 
it put to flight an expectation to see what so many have 
desired to behold, yet have never seen." 

Among the few favorable criticisms of this portrait was 
one contained in The Examiner of May 18, 1861. That 
journal remarked concerning the similarity between the 
bust and the portrait, said: "But nothing in the por- 
trait suggests that it was copied from the bust. The 
lower part, of course, does not follow the manner of the 
statuary, and from that fact no conclusion can be drawn. 
But in the face lies the main evidence. The picture is of 
such small value as artist's work, that we hardly can credit 
the painter with the power he must have had of turning 
stone into life when he added expression in the play of 
feature to the corners of the mouth, and achieved a suc- 
cessful transformation of the nose. Shakespeare has in 
the portrait a nose in good harmony with the rest of his 
face, not insignificant, as on the bust, and differing in 
outline, especially by a well-marked curve between the 
root and the tip that in a copyist from the bust would 
have been an error hardly probable. As a suggestion 
of the face of Shakespeare the portrait is to be preferred, 
and there is nothing stony in its look, nothing to dis- 
credit at first sight any belief that it may have been a 



1 62 THE, PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

copy from life by one who was a tolerably faithful, al- 
though not a first-rate, portrait-painter. The bust, as our 
readers know, was modelled some time after death, when 
use was to be made of all possible aids to memory." 

The portrait is evidently not the work of an artist of 
much ability, and yet there are good points in it. The 
eyes are well done, and have a good expression. The 
picture represents Shakespeare in the prime of life. 
The moustache is very small, and curled upwards, as in 
the bust. The tuft on the chin, also, corresponds to that 
on the effigy. The costume is very similar. 

Mr. Hunt was said to have been offered three thousand 
pounds for the picture by Mr. Jeremiah Matthews, of 
Birmingham, but he presented it to the town of Stratford- 
upon-Avon, where it is preserved in the house on Hen- 
ley Street, where the poet was born. It is there kept 
in a fire-proof case, and the frame surrounding it is made 
from oak taken from the house. Above the frame there 
is the following inscription on a brass plate: 

"This portrait of Shakespeare, after being in the pos- 
session of Mr. William Oakes Hunt, Town Clerk of Strat- 
ford, and his family, for upwards of a century, was re- 
stored to its original condition by Mr. Simon Collins, of 
London, and being considered a portrait of much interest 
and value, was given by Mr. Hunt to the town of Strat- 



Wbt Stratfortr portrait 



From Photograph of Original. 



THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. 1 63 

ford-upon-Avon, to be placed and preserved in Shake- 
speare's house. — 23d April, 1862." 

There is painted on the case of the frame the follow- 
ing inscription: "This case was made from a portion of 
the waste wood which formed part of the old structure of 
Shakespeare's house." 

Inside the iron doors of the fire-proof case in which the 
picture is kept, there are silver plates, bearing the familiar 
lines from The Merchant of Venice: 

"Fast bind, fast find; 

A proverb never stale in thrifty mind." 

In March, 1861, Mr. Simon Collins published a large 
photograph of this picture which represents the portrait 
as entirely different in expression from its present condi- 
tion. The negative has been much "touched up" and 
altered. Indeed it is not generally known how great a 
change in the expression of a face can be made in a photo- 
graph by this process. Dr. C. M. Ingleby was desirous of 
obtaining a photograph which would represent correctly 
the Stratford portrait, and went to a great deal of trouble 
to attain his object, only to meet with utter failure. He 
took one of Mr. Collins' photographs, referred to above, 
which was painted upon by Mr. Collins, after the original 
picture, and then photographed again. The result was 



164 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

painted upon by Mr. Munns, of Birmingham, after the 
original, and then photographed by H. J. Whitlock. Dr. 
Ingleby then took the last-named photograph to Strat- 
ford-upon-Avon in October, 1872, and compared it with 
the original picture. He says that he was unable to dis- 
cover the slightest resemblance between the two faces. 
The present writer is not surprised at this, for anything 
more unlike the painting can hardly be imagined. The 
whole expression of the face has been changed by the re- 
peated "touching up" that it has undergone, and it looks 
like another picture altogether. 

The best photograph of the Stratford portrait, in its 
present condition, was published in Friswell's Life Por- 
traits of William Shakespeare ; although the prints in dif- 
ferent copies of the book vary very much, they having 
been printed from a number of negatives, and some of 
the latter have been more successfully "touched up" 
than others. They are by Cundall, Downes & Co. 

Photographs, purporting to be taken from the Strat- 
ford portrait, are sold in Stratford-upon-Avon, as correct 
delineations of the picture. Some of them show the pic- 
ture and the frame, and others omit the latter. All of 
them show the hair frizzed in the most peculiar manner, 
utterly unlike the curling locks of the painting itself. 
This, of course, is the result of injudicious alterations of 



THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. 1 65 

the negatives. The eyebrows are also lengthened, and a 
new background supplied, the lights and shadows altered, 
and many minor changes made. In frizzing the hair in 
these pictures it has been brought further forward, and 
the expression of the whole face thus altered. They 
were photographed by F. Bedford, and serve to show 
how unreliable photographs sometimes are, and yet being 
the result of a mechanical process, many people think 
they must be accurate. The likenesses of our friends 
tell us, however, that this is often not true. 



THE ASHBORNE PORTRAIT. 



THIS singular portrait has no pedigree. It was pur- 
chased by Mr. Clements Kingston, of Ashborne, 
Derbyshire, England, some time prior to March, 1847. 
All that is known concerning it is set forth in the fol- 
lowing letter written by Mr. Kingston to Mr. Abraham 
Wivell, author of An Inquiry, etc. It has never before 
been published: 

"Grammar School, Ashborne, March 8, 1847. 
"Dear Sir: 

"I return you many thanks for your kind offer, and 
also for the candid and open manner in which you ex- 
press yourself. I am perfectly aware of the innumer- 
able deceptions and frauds of every possible kind which 
are practiced upon the unwary connoisseur, having given 
my attention to paintings for the last ten or fifteen years ; 
but I am happy to say nothing of the kind has taken 
place with regard to the picture in question. 

"The way in which I happened to come into posses- 
sion of it was this: A friend in London sent me word 

(166) 



Wfyt gteWovnt tyovtvait. 



From Mezzotint by G. F. Storm. 



THE ASHBORNE PORTRAIT. 1 67 

that he had seen a portrait of Shakespeare, that he was 
positive it was a genuine picture, and that the owner only- 
valued it as being a very fine painting. Being too poor 
to purchase it for himself, he advised me by all means to 
have it. I immediately wrote back requesting him to 
secure me the prize. 

"Since being in my possession it has been merely re- 
lined, and is in most excellent preservation. Of the 
genuineness of it I have not the slightest doubt what- 
ever, or I should not have asked so valuable an opinion 
as yours. In fact, and I speak it with the utmost confi- 
dence (though I am sure you will consider me too bold), 
I really believe it to be the best, and certainly the most 
interesting portrait of the immortal bard in existence. 

"The size of the picture is three feet ten inches, by 
three feet, and represents him, the size of life, down to 
the knee. His right arm is leaning upon a skull, and in 
that hand he holds a book, upon the cover of which, 
amongst the ornamental details, is the crest of the Shake- 
speare family, and the tragic mask. This is too small to 
have been put on by any party wishing to pass the por- 
trait off as genuine; for ninety-nine out of a hundred 
would never notice it ; and moreover I will warrant every 
portion of the picture to have been painted at the same 
period. 

"In the left hand upper corner, in characters of the 



1 68 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

period, is y£tatis svae. 47 A° 161 1. The shape of the 
face and countenance altogether greatly resemble those 
in the picture belonging to the Duke of Somerset; in 
fact so very similar do they appear, that, judging from 
the engraving, I could fancy the two portraits to be the 
production of the same hand, but the original picture be- 
longing to the Duke I have not seen. 

"To sum up, I will warrant my picture to have been 
purchased in its original state, and that the canvas, etc., 
is peculiarly of the period in which Shakespeare lived; 
that it has never been retouched since it was painted, and 
therefore that whatever detail there may be on it (which 
I consider gives more weight than anything), was cer- 
tainly every touch, painted with the portrait itself. 

"Should you, after this description, think the matter 
worthy of your further attention, I will either arrange for 
the picture being sent to you, or if you will oblige me by 
saying what your travelling expenses would be, I will 
send you the sum required. 

"In the mean time, I remain, dear sir, 

"In haste, 

"Yours very truly, and greatly obliged 

"Clements Kingston." 
"Mr. Wivell."* 

* This letter is printed from a MS. copy kindly furnished by Samuel Tirnmins, 
Esq., J. P. 



THE ASHBORNE PORTRAIT. 1 69 

It will be seen that its history amounts to nothing, and 
while Mr. Kingston evidently had a strong belief in the 
genuineness and antiquity of the picture, he had no evi- 
dence to support this belief beyond the painting itself. 

The portrait is a three-quarter length, and represents 
Shakespeare standing by a large table, with a cover. 
He leans his right arm on the table, on one corner of 
which is a human skull. In the poet's right hand is a 
book, elaborately bound, with ribbons to tie it together, 
in the old style. The left hand has a large signet ring 
on the thumb, and holds an elaborately embroidered 
gauntlet. The dress is of the Elizabethan style, and 
consists of a tightly fitting coat, of rich material, but not 
embroidered, with short waist, and puffed out breeches. 
A narrow but handsomely worked sword belt encircles 
the waist, but no sword is shown. A large ruff made of 
many rows of lace, and smaller ones at the wrists com- 
plete the costume. 

In the upper left hand corner of the picture, above the 
right shoulder of the figure, are the words "^Etatis svse. 
47 A° 161 1." The forehead is high and somewhat like 
the Jansen portrait. The eyebrows are delicate and 
arched, the nose long and not unlike the Jansen, and the 
mouth also bears a resemblance to that picture. But 
here the resemblance ends, for while the moustache and 



170 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

beard are the same as in that portrait, the lower part 
of the face is longer and narrower. In fact the lower 
part of the head does not seem well drawn, and is unsat- 
isfactory. The expression is sad, and the whole picture, 
owing to its costume and accessories perhaps, is a strik- 
ing one. The hands are well drawn except the thumb 
of the left hand, which is unnaturally long, and on this 
thumb is a large ring. 

On January 1, 1846, a large and beautifully executed 
mezzotint of this picture, by G. F. Storm, was "published 
for the proprietor," by the engraver. It states that it is 
"from an original picture in the possession of C. U. 
Kingston Esq." It is a somewhat rare print, and is sel- 
dom seen. It is beautifully engraved, and represents the 
picture correctly. The tragic mask which is referred 
to by Mr. Kingston as being among the ornamental de- 
tails of the binding of the book, is plainly perceptible in 
this engraving; but the crest of Shakespeare which he 
also says is on the binding of the book is not shown. 

Shortly after the mezzotint was published, an engrav- 
ing on wood, copied from it, appeared; and apart from 
the fact that the engraver has placed the skull directly 
under the poet's arm instead of on the corner of the 
table, it is a good copy of Storm's engraving. 

Another copy of Storm's mezzotint, this time on steel, 



THE ASHBORNE PORTRAIT. 171 

was also published about this time. It is a small plate, 
but exceeding well engraved, mostly in line. The figure 
is only shown to the waist, and the table, skull, glove, 
etc., are omitted. No engraver's or publisher's name is 
given, and the date of publication is also omitted. Un- 
derneath the plate is engraved a fac-simile of Shake- 
speare's autograph. 



THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE BUST. 



THERE formerly stood in Portugal Street, on the 
south side of Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, an old 
red brick building, which was originally called the Duke's 
Theatre. It was so named after James, Duke of York, 
the brother of Charles II., and was erected in 1662 for 
Sir William D'Avenant's company. 

D'Avenant, who was born in 1606, was the son of a 
tavern keeper at Oxford, at whose inn (the "Crown") 
Shakespeare is said to have been in the habit of stopping 
when going to and fro between Stratford and London. 
The story which makes D'Avenant the natural son of 
the great poet need not be dwelt on here. Certain it 
is, however, that he always had a great admiration for 
Shakespeare and his works, and it is related of him that 
he composed an ode on the poet's death when only ten 
years old. His first dramatic production is dated 1629, 
and when Ben Jonson died, in 1637, ne was appointed 

(172) 



&fje 3Ptttte of mtoomWvt Ettst 



From Photograph of Original. 



THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE BUST. I 73 

Poet Laureate. Later, during the Civil War, he was 
accused of being concerned in intrigues, and imprisoned 
in the Tower of London. He succeeded in escaping to 
France, however, and returned to England, where he did 
such good service for the Royalist cause that King 
Charles made him a knight. D'Avenant was again 
thrown into prison by his enemies, and, after remaining 
in the Tower for two years more, he was finally released 
at the request of Milton. He then established his the- 
atre, which, as before stated, was named the Duke's 
Theatre. Here he produced many of Shakespeare's 
plays, but his love for his reputed father's immortal 
works did not prevent him from making many injudi- 
cious changes and alterations in them. One of the best 
known of these is his version of Macbeth, published in 
1674. The title-page reads thus : " Macbeth, a Tragaedy. 
With all the Alterations, Amendments, Additions, and 
New Songs. As it's now Acted at the Dukes Theatre. 
London, Printed for P. Chetwin, and are to be Sold by 
most Booksellers, 1674." 

In 1737 the Duke's Theatre ceased to be occupied for 
theatrical performances. It was afterwards altered into 
a warehouse for Spode and Copeland — names that will 
ever be dear to the lover of old china. In 1845 the 
warehouse was pulled down to make additional room for 



174 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

an enlargement of the museum of the College of Sur- 
geons. While the building was being demolished much 
of the plan and shape of the former theatre was laid bare ; 
and when the workmen were knocking down a portion of 
one of the walls, on one side of an arched door, that was 
formerly one of the main entrances to the old theatre, they 
noticed, among the bricks and mortar that had fallen, 
broken pieces of a terra-cotta bust. Calling the Curator 
of the museum of the College of Surgeons adjoining, 
they pointed out to him these remains. Mr. William 
Clift, F.R.S., who was then Curator, and his son-in-law, 
Professor Owen, collected the pieces, and putting them 
together, they at once saw the bust was well made. 
Who it was they were not certain, but finally concluded 
that it was intended for Ben Jonson. Having found a 
bust on one side of the door, they thought there might 
be another companion bust on the other side. They 
therefore directed the workmen to use great care in tak- 
ing down the portion of the wall that was still standing. 
Here behind the bricks, a terra-cotta bust, which was at 
once recognized as that of Shakespeare, was found. It 
was in a perfect state of preservation, and after it had 
been carefully cleaned it was in some manner obtained 
by Mr. Clift. It is very strange that the College of Sur- 
geons did not claim so valuable and interesting a me- 



THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE BUST. 1 75 

morial as their own property. Perhaps, however, it was 
not then thought to be of much importance. 

The position in which it was found, bricked up behind 
a wall that had evidently been erected in converting the 
old Duke's Theatre into the china warehouse, gives the 
bust every right to be regarded as a work of the time of 
Charles I., or a few years later, but there is no mark on 
it to indicate the date when it was made, and nothing is 
known of its sculptor. 

On the death of Mr. Gift the bust passed to his son- 
in-law, Professor Owen, afterwards connected with the 
British Museum. He kept it in his possession for sev- 
eral years, and then sold it, for three hundred guineas, 
to the Duke of Devonshire. (It will be remembered 
that the Earl of Ellesmere only paid three hundred and 
fifty-five guineas for the celebrated Chandos portrait of 
Shakespeare, when he bought it at the sale of the Duke 
of Buckingham's effects in 1848.) 

The Duke of Devonshire had two casts made from it, 
one of which he presented to Sir Joseph Paxton, of Crys- 
tal Palace fame. In 1864 this cast was at the Crystal 
Palace, Sydenham, and it is believed to be still there. 
The original bust was presented to the Garrick Club, 
King Street, London, in 1855, by the Duke of Devon- 
shire, accompanied by the following letter : 



176 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

"Brighton, 8th Dec, 1855. 

"Sir: 

" I have for some time wished to pay a visit to the Gar- 
rick Club, and to ask you to show me that most interest- 
ing collection which belongs to it; but having again left 
London for some time, another delay is caused, and I 
must write to you to say that there is in my possession 
a very interesting bust of Shakespeare, which I wish to 
present to the Club as a token of good-will, and also 
of regret that the state of my health has hitherto obliged 
me to appear so remiss as a president. 

"The bust, which is in terra cotta, was in the posses- 
sion of Professor Owen, of the College of Surgeons, from 
whom I purchased it. It was discovered in pulling down 
the old Duke's Theatre, in Lincoln's Inn Fields, where it 
was placed under one of the stage-doors ; the bust of Ben 
Jonson (accidentally destroyed by the workmen), occupy- 
ing a corresponding place over the other door, Shake- 
speare having been rescued by the timely interposition 
of Mr. Clift (Professor Owen's father-in-law). The bust 
became his property, and was given by him to Professor 
Owen. 

"It is my wish to know at what time it will be con- 
venient for the bust to be received ; and Sir Joseph Pax- 
ton, in whose possession the bust now is, at Sydenham, 



THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE BUST. I J J 

will forward it at any time if you will inform him or me at 
what time it should be sent. 

"I have the honor to be, sir, 

"Your obedient, humble servant, 
"Devonshire. 
"J. Barnes, Esq., Secretary of the Garrick Club? 

At the first glance at the bust one would suppose that 
its features were copied after the Chandos portrait, but 
a longer inspection shows that it has a much nobler 
aspect and more closely resembles the Death Mask. 
There are no ear-rings in the ears, as there are in the 
Chandos, but the beard on the bust is very much like 
that in the painting, except that the moustache of the 
bust is drooping, instead of turned up as in the Chandos. 
The forehead is high and noble; the hair profuse and 
curling, like the Chandos. The eyes are fine and well 
sculptured, the nose sharp and delicately chiselled, but 
while there is none of the sad expression so painfully 
well rendered in the Death Mask, and the face is not 
as broad as the latter, still there is a resemblance to it. 
The costume is very graceful, and while the elaborate 
lace collar is evidently of the time of Charles I., the 
cloak thrown over one shoulder gives the whole figure 
somewhat of a theatrical appearance. 

Its merits as a work of art are quite good, and it is 

23 



178 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

much superior to the Stratford bust. There is an intel- 
lectual expression about the face that makes one wish 
this was a well authenticated likeness of the great poet. 
As to the date of its production nothing certain is 
known, but it was probably made in the time of Charles 
I. or his successor. D'Avenant would not have per- 
mitted a bust of Shakespeare to ornament his theatre 
which was utterly unlike the poet, who he claimed as 
a father, if tradition be true. It will further be remem- 
bered that the Chandos portrait was also said to have 
been in D'Avenant's possession. This bust still remains 
in the possession of the Garrick Club, and is one of its 
most interesting relics. 



THE HAMPTON COURT PORTRAIT. 



IN Hampton Court Palace, situated in the village of 
Hampton, a few miles from London, is an old paint- 
ing which formerly hung near the top of a large room 
with a high ceiling. It was so high from the ground that 
it was difficult to say what it was. Later it was hung 
lower, and is now claimed to represent Shakespeare. 

The picture is reported to have come from Penhurst, 
and is stated to have belonged to the D'Lisles; one of 
whom gave or sold it to William IV., by whom it was 
placed at Hampton Court. Who painted it is not known, 
nor indeed can the brief pedigree above given be vouched 
for. Nothing is positively known about it except that 
it has been in the palace for many years. 

Hampton Court Palace was originally erected by Car- 
dinal Wolsey, and was enlarged by Henry VIII. Edward 
VI. was born there ; Charles I. was confined there for some 
time, and it was also occupied at various times by Crom- 

(179) 



l8o THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

well, Charles II., and James II. William III. rebuilt a 
large portion of it, and the picture gallery contains works 
by Raphael, Lely, Holbein, Kneller, West and others. 
There is nothing improbable, therefore, in a portrait of 
Shakespeare being in the collection. 

The picture represents the figure almost to the knees. 
The face is more like the Chandos portrait than any 
other, but the nose is longer. The forehead is very 
similar to that portrait, but the eyes are blue instead of 
dark brown as in the Chandos, and the hair is nearly 
black as compared with the auburn or dark brown of the 
latter. The mouth, moustache and beard on the cheeks 
and chin are very similar to those of that portrait, but 
the dress is entirely different. The Hampton Court 
picture represents a man in a rich dress, elaborately em- 
broidered, and with gold buttons. It is open at the 
waist, and at the sleeves. Only the top of the breeches 
can be seen, but they are red, puffed out, and bombasted 
in the style of James I. A broad belt is worn high upon 
the waist, elaborately embroidered, and with a large 
buckle. Suspended from this are a dagger and sword 
— the right hand of the figure holding the former, and 
the left supporting the handle of the sword, which has a 
large pommel, and a gilt basket-hilt. A large ruff com- 
pletes the costume; and from the left ear, which is 



v 



THE HAMPTON COURT PORTRAIT. l8l 

pierced, there hangs a double string. Above the head 
is the inscription u s£tat. sues. 34." The hands are rep- 
resented with long and pointed fingers, and there are 
ruffs at the wrists. 

It is evidently a genuine portrait, and not a forgery, 
but whether it represents Shakespeare or not is a matter 
which will probably never be known. 

Some years ago the Arundel Society published a pho- 
tograph of this portrait which gives a very good repre- 
sentation of it ; but the cracks in the varnish show more 
distinctly in the photograph than in the picture. 



THE HILLIARD MINIATURE. 



THIS curious little miniature has a history which is 
apparently authentic, and certainly far better than 
most of the pictures that claim to represent Shake- 
speare. 

Sir James Bland Burges, who acquired this miniature 
on the death of his mother, wrote James Boswell, (who 
edited Malone's edition of Shakespeare, published in 
1821,) the following account of its history: 

"Lower Brook Street, 

"26th June, 1818. 
"Dear Boswell: 

"I send you the history of my portrait of Shakespeare, 
which I apprehend will leave no reason to doubt of its 
authenticity. 

"Mr. Somerville, of Edstone, near Stratford-upon- 
Avon, ancestor of Somerville, author of the Chase, &c, 
lived in habits of intimacy with Shakespeare, particularly 

(182) 



art)* 'mnuuvr* Minmuvt. 



From Engraving by T. W. Harland. 



THE HILLIARD MINIATURE. 1 83 

after his retirement from the stage, and had this portrait 
painted, which, as you will perceive, was richly set, and 
was carefully preserved by his descendants, till it came 
to the hands of his great-grandson, the poet, who dying 
in 1742, without issue, left his estates to my grandfather, 
Lord Somerville, and gave this miniature to my mother. 
She valued it very highly, as well for the sake of the 
donor, as for that of the great genius of which it was the 
representative; and I well remember that, when I was a 
boy, its production was not unfrequently a very accept- 
able reward of my good behavior. After my mother's 
death, I sought in vain for this and some other family 
relics, and at length had abandoned all hope of ever 
finding them, when chance most unexpectedly restored 
them to me about ten days ago, in consequence of the 
opening of a bureau which had belonged to my mother, 
in a private drawer of which, this and the other missing 
things were found. 

"Believe me to be, 
"Dear Boswell, 

"Yours most truly, 

"J. B. Burges." 
Sir James loaned the miniature to Boswell, who says 
he "submitted it to the inspection of many of the most 
distinguished members of the Royal Academy, and to 
several antiquarian friends." 



184 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

They thought well of it and he concluded to have an 
engraving made from it for the edition of Malone's 
Shakespeare that he was about to publish. By the ad- 
vice of Sir Thomas Lawrence he employed Mr. Agar to 
engrave a plate for him. This was done, and the print 
appeared in the second volume of that work, in 1821. 

Boaden says that Boswell showed him the miniature, 
and that it at once struck him "to have been unquestion- 
ably painted by Hilliard." Unfortunately, however, he 
does not tell us the reasons which led him to believe 
this, and there is nothing known concerning the minia- 
ture that supports such a belief, and it will be observed 
that Sir James does not say a word as to who the painter 
was. No doubts, however, seem to have troubled Boa- 
den, and he speaks of Hilliard as if he was unquestion- 
ably the painter of the miniature, which will go down to 
posterity as the "Hilliard miniature," though it would 
have been far better to call it after Burges. 

Nicholas Hilliard was born in 1547, and was well 
known as an artist in England. He continued to paint 
until a short time before his death, which took place in 
1619. 

Speaking of Sir James' account of the history of the 
miniature, Boaden remarks: 

"It would be merely rude to ask for more particulars 



THE HILLIARD MINIATURE. 1 85 

as to this transmission of the picture, than Sir James has 
been pleased to give ; but I hope I may without offence 
express some astonishment, that Somerville the poet, a 
man born almost on the banks of the Avon, glorying in 
his countryman, and writing occasionally verses to poets 
on the subjects of poetry, should have in his possession 
an authentic portrait of Shakespeare, and never allow it 
to be engraved; and see Mr. Pope publishing to the 
world a head of King James, and calling it Shakespeare, 
and never show to him the treasure on which he might 
so securely have relied."* 

Boaden further states that as Somerville's death did 
not take place until 1 742, he must have heard of these 
matters, and yet he never communicated the fact of his 
having such a picture in his possession. 

The miniature represents the poet with a somewhat 
receding forehead, which is much lower than in the other 
portraits; and the hair, which is also lighter, grows for- 
ward in the centre of the forehead, and recedes high up 
at the sides. The moustache is long and brushed out 
straight, not drooping. The goatee is long, straight and 
pointed, and the rest of the face is smooth. The nose is 
straight, the eyes expressive and handsome, the eye- 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 131. 
24 



1 86 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

brows arched. The face is full, and the whole effect 
quite pleasing. There is a large and deep ruff, with lace 
around the edge, the costume elaborate. The miniature 
only shows the figure a little below the shoulders. 

The first engraving made from this miniature was a 
small one, by Agar, published June 25, 1821, "by F. C. 
and J. Rivington & Partners." It appeared in BoswelFs 
edition of Malone's Shakespeare, London: 1821, 8vo., 
and has been before referred to. It is a good copy of 
the miniature, and is a neatly executed engraving. 

In 1827 B. Holl made an exact copy of the above en- 
graving, for Wivell's Inquiry, etc., London: 1827, 8vo., 
in which it appeared. The engraving is fully as well 
done as Agar's, and the only perceptible difference is in 
the costume, which is a little blacker in Holl's print. 

In the second edition of Wivell's Inquiry, etc., London : 
1840, 8vo., a very fine engraving of this miniature was 
published. It was engraved by T. W. Harland and is 
twice as large as the plates by Agar and Holl. Com- 
paring it with them one sees how much finer it is. It has 
a facsimile of the poet's signature under it. 



\ 



THE WARWICK PORTRAIT. 



AMONG the pictures in Warwick Castle, is one which 
has been there for many years, and which has 
always been believed to be a portrait of Shakespeare. 
Its history, however, is unknown, and who painted it, 
where it came from, and other details which would enable 
one to decide upon its claims to be a genuine picture of 
the poet, are unfortunately all matters of conjecture. 

He is represented as seated by a table with a white 
cover. The chair is red with a high back, and Shake- 
speare appears to be about to write, and looks up as if in 
meditation. The background is dark, and the costume 
black, with ruff and sleeve ruffles of white lace. The 
face is more youthful than in the other portraits, the 
complexion reddish, the features delicate, and the beard 
pointed, with moustache. The expression of the face is 
refined and spirited, according to Dr. Waagen,* who be- 

* Treasures of Art in Great Britain. London: 1854, Vol. Ill, p. 216. 

(187) 



1 88 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

stows much praise upon the execution of the picture, and 
says that it is evidently the work of a careful painter, but 
he does not even venture to guess who the artist was. 
He believes it to be an original portrait, and it is greatly 
to be regretted that some details of its history have not 
been preserved. 






Wfyt 3muitiQU JHiniatttt** 



From Engraving by W. Holl. 









i 







I 



THE JENNINGS MINIATURE. 



THIS miniature, painted in oil, was contained in an 
enamelled gold locket, which was formerly set 
with pearls. It was the property of H. Constantine Jen- 
nings, of Battersea, who had borrowed six or seven hun- 
dred pounds on its security, and that of an old missal, 
from a Mr. Webb. Either the jewels which the locket 
formerly contained were valuable, or the missal was of 
great rarity and value, or else Mr. Webb fared badly, for 
when the miniature and locket were put up for sale at 
Christie's, in London, in February, 1827, it was bought 
by Charles Auriol, Esq., for nine and a half guineas. It 
had also been owned by a Mr. Wise. Jennings claimed 
to have traced the possession of the miniature back to 
the Southampton family, but no proof of this exists. 

The miniature is neatly painted, and the features well 
drawn. The forehead is high, the beard full, as in the 
Chandos portrait ; the collar, which is of lace, very large ; 

(189) 



I9O THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

the costume white and much ornamented. Only the 
head and shoulders are shown. Wilson was of opinion 
that "there appears upon the face of this picture a stamp 
of undoubted originality,"* and Wivell says "that the 
picture is intended for the poet, and is of antiquity, I have 
no doubt."f 

On the side of the picture, on the background, is the 
age, JEt 33. It is sometimes called the Auriol miniature. 

A beautiful engraving of the miniature was made in 
1827, by W. Holl, for Wivell's Inquiry. The picture was 
loaned by Mr. Auriol for this purpose, and the engraving 
is very well executed. 



* Shakespeariana. London: 1827, i6mo., p. xxxvi. 
f An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 210. 



&*)* Emm ^^tttatt 



From Photograph of Original. 



THE BURN PORTRAIT. 



GEORGE Adam Burn Esq., of London, is the owner 
of this curious picture. He states that it has 
been in his possession for about forty years, and in his 
family previously. It has been twice publicly exhibited, 
first in the Gallery of Old Masters at Burlington House, 
and again at the "Shakespeare Show" held in the Albert 
Hall, South Kensington, in 1884. 

The picture is in oil, on canvas, and is about eighteen 
inches high by fifteen inches wide. The face is well 
drawn and has an animated expression. It bears con- 
siderable resemblance to the Stratford bust, except that 
the hair is much more profuse than in the latter. The 
moustache and goatee are very similar also to the Strat- 
ford bust. The dress is indistinct, except the collar, 
which is of lace, and is very rich. It is open at the front, 
displaying the neck. What its history is, or who painted 
it is unknown. It is considered by its owner to be a 
genuine portrait of the poet. 

An outline sketch of it appeared in the Shakespearian 
Show Book, London: 1884, and it has been well photo- 
graphed. 

(19O 



THE LUMLEY PORTRAIT. 



THIS picture originally formed part of the collection 
of paintings at Lumley Castle, Durham, England. 
In 1785 the pictures at the Castle were sold at auction. 
Who purchased the portrait in question is not known, 
but subsequently it was repurchased, together with a 
number of other paintings, by the Earl of Scarborough, 
who was a relative of Lord Lumley, the former owner of 
Lumley Castle. It remained in the possession of the 
Earl of Scarborough's family until 1807, when it was 
again sold, together with other pictures. 

The sale of 1807 seems to have been carelessly man- 
aged, for many of the portraits of distinguished English- 
men, of which the collection contained a number, were 
sold without their names being attached. This alleged 
portrait of Shakespeare shared that fate, and its value 
was not known to many of those present at the sale. 
One gentleman there was, however, who recognized the 

(192) 



THE LUMLEY PORTRAIT. 1 93 

picture, and purchased it. This was Mr. Ralph Waters, 
of Newcastle. He was an artist, and saw sufficient merit 
in it to make him desire to own it. It remained in Mr. 
Waters' possession until his death, when he left it, by 
will, to his brother. The latter gentleman sold it to Mr. 
George Rippon, of North Shields. While it was in Mr. 
Rippon's possession it was taken to New York, and 
placed in the Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations, 
held there in 1863. Many persons who saw it in that 
exhibition supposed that it was the celebrated Chandos 
portrait, to which it bears considerable resemblance. 

In 1864 it was again exhibited, this time at the Ter- 
centenary celebration of Shakespeare's birth, held at 
Stratford-upon-Avon in April of that year. While there 
it attracted much attention. In the official catalogue of 
that exhibition "Mrs. Rippon" is mentioned as the 
owner. Another account, however, states that George 
Rippon bequeathed it to Mr. John Fenwick, of Preston 
House, Tynemouth. 

It was advertised to be sold at auction in London, by 
Christie and Mason, early in December, 1874, but at the 
sale only ^30 was bid, and it was withdrawn. Sub- 
sequently it was privately purchased for the Baroness 
Burdett-Coutts. 

John, Lord Lumley, who began the collection of pic- 

25 



194 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

tures at Lumley Castle, was born in 1534, and died in 
1609. Surtees, in his History of Durham, Vol. II, p. 155, 
says that "the portraits described by Pennant, in 1776, 
at Lumley Castle, are chiefly portraits of illustrious Eng- 
lishmen, the contemporaries of John, Lord Lumley, who 
may be fairly deemed the author of the collection." 

Hutchinson {History of Durham, p. 403,) remarks that 
"Dr. Stukeley, in his Iter Boreale in 1725, says, 'at Lum- 
ley Castle is a curious old picture of Chaucer, said to be 
an original' — we could not find any such portrait." From 
this passage it has been attempted to be argued that 
Stukeley's allusion to a portrait of Chaucer was a slip of 
the pen for Shakespeare, and it is certain that when 
Hutchinson looked for the Chaucer picture none could 
be found. 

The picture is an oil painting, and as before stated, 
closely resembles the Chandos portrait. The forehead, 
nose, eyes, and the general arrangement of the hair and 
beard are all very similar to that portrait, but the chin 
seems longer in the Lumley, and the beard is not quite 
as pointed. The linen collar is of the same shape as the 
Chandos, and its strings hang down in the same manner 
as those in that portrait. One cannot help feeling that 
there is some connection between these two pictures, 
and indeed, the idea that the Lumley picture was the 
original of the Chandos has been suggested. 



THE LUMLEY PORTRAIT. 1 95 

The painting bears every evidence of age, and there 
is a perfect network of cracks visible on the forehead and 
cheeks. It does not rank as high as the Chandos portrait 
as a work of art, the eyes especially not being as well 
painted. 

In 1862 Vincent Brooks made a remarkable chromo- 
lithograph from the Lumley portrait, published in that 
year by Henry Graves & Co. ; having their place of busi- 
ness, oddly enough, at No. i Chandos Street, Covent 
Garden, London. In this chromo-lithograph the cracks 
in the original picture are reproduced with marvellous 
fidelity, and it has every appearance of an old painting 
itself when looked at from a little distance. A close view, 
of course, shows that the surface is too smooth for an 
old picture full of cracks as this one is. The deception 
is so complete, however, that it is related that one of 
these copies was once sold for forty guineas to a pur- 
chaser who thought he was buying the original Lumley 
portrait. This is hard to believe, especially as Vincent 
Brooks' name is in the lower right hand corner. 



THE BOSTON ART MUSEUM PORTRAIT. 



THIS very striking picture has a curious history, 
which unfortunately cannot be verified. 
On the back of the portrait there is the following in- 
scription : 

"William Shakespeare. 
"Painted by Federigo Zuccaro. 

"1595- 
"Was Found in 3 Pieces in pulling down an Old 

House on the Surrey side of the Thames — where stood 

once the Globe Tavern and Theatre." 

It seems that Benjamin Joy, of Boston, while on a visit 

to Europe, heard of a sale which was to take place at an 

old house on the Thames, London, where the Globe 

Theatre had formerly stood. He attended the auction, 

and purchased this portrait, which had hung over the 

mantel-piece of the dining room. It was then so black 

that it was impossible to say who it represented, and it 

(196) 



From Photograph of Original by Sonrel. 



i 



THE BOSTON ART MUSEUM PORTRAIT. 1 97 

was knocked down to Mr. Joy for a small sum. He was 
attracted by it because it seemed to be as old as the 
house. 

After keeping it for some time, he sent it, (with the 
frame in which he had bought it,) to his sister Miss Abby 
Joy, of Boston. The latter employed a Mr. Howarth, 
an Englishman residing in that city, to clean it. He in- 
formed Miss Joy that it was undoubtedly a portrait of 
Shakespeare, and that it seemed to him to have been 
painted by Zucchero, and referred to the lace on the 
collar as being in his style of work. The frame he said 
was the production of an Italian, as it had the character- 
istics of frames made in that country. 

When Miss Abby Joy died she left this portrait by will 
to Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis. While in her possession it 
was beautifully photographed by Sonrel in two ways, 
one showing the curious openwork frame, and the other 
merely the picture. 

On the death of Mrs. Otis the picture was presented 
to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, where it now is. 

The above details were obligingly communicated to 
the present writer by Gen. Charles G. Loring, of the 
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Gen. Loring says, "I 
think it well established that it came from the alleged 
site. It is evidently a portrait of Shakespeare — to ascribe 
it to Zucchero is guesswork, and further it has been 



198 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

touched up, how much one cannot say, but Howarth was 
an unconscionable restorer." 

The portrait is painted on panel and represents the 
head and shoulders only. It is evidently the work of an 
artist of some ability, for the drawing is excellent. The 
face is long, and the nose straight and well formed. The 
eyes are expressive and especially well done; on the 
chin is a long and pointed goatee; and the moustache 
thin and brushed out straight. The hair is dark and 
curling, but owing to the color of the background it is 
not easy to see the manner in which it is represented. 
The collar is very large and fluted, edged with lace, the 
pattern of which is plainly shown. There is an appear- 
ance about the collar which would seem to indicate that 
it had been painted over the goatee, or else the beard 
over the collar — probably the former. There is cer- 
tainly something wrong about this part of the picture. 

This picture cannot be a portrait of Shakespeare from 
life by Zucchero, because that artist left England in 1580, 
when the poet was only sixteen years old, and represents 
a man of at least thirty-five. But attributing it to that 
artist is mere guesswork, as Gen. Loring very truly ob- 
serves. 

Nothing could be better than Sonrel's photographs of 
this picture, which give a perfect representation of it. 



THE CHALLIS PORTRAIT. 



THOMAS Challis, Esq., a banker, residing in West 
Smithfield, London, purchased this portrait from 
one of his old clerks. The latter had bought it at an 
auction sale of the effects of Dr. Black. These meagre 
details are all that are known concerning it. 

It is a three-quarter length portrait, painted in oil, on a 
panel which is cracked in two places. These cracks have 
been carefully repaired, and the background and costume 
of the figure restored. The cracks did not pass through 
the face, which is in a good state of preservation. 

Friswell saw this portrait prior to 1864, and thus de- 
scribes it: "The head, which is a fine one, looks too nar- 
row for that of Shakespeare. The forehead is high, but 
not very broad ; the complexion fair, with a brown tint; 
the eyes a dark gray, so shaded that they appear, unless 
closely looked into, to be hazel ; the nose long, thin, and 
aquiline, approaching to Roman ; the upper lip very short, 

(199) 



200 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

covered with a brown-red moustache ; the hair, which curls 
naturally, is a true red auburn. The look of the portrait 
is neither so open nor so generous as that of the bust, 
the Droeshout, or the Chandos portraits. * * * * The 
mouth and moustache are the features which most re- 
semble the received portraits, with the exception, before 
stated, that the upper lip is very short. 

"The dress is remarkable: a large, wide-spreading, 
curiously open-worked, Spanish collar, which extends 
from shoulder to shoulder, and exhibits the neck nearly 
to the collar-bone, gives a foreign appearance to the pic- 
ture; nor does the face detract from this appearance. 
The dress is excellently painted, and is of a slate color, 
worked, shaded and bound with black. In one corner of 
the picture we find the date and age, y£t. 46, 1610; the 
age, of course, corresponds with that of Shakespeare at 
that period. The neck, as we have noticed, much ex- 
posed, is ill drawn; with this exception, in both drawing 
and execution the picture is admirable."* 

He further adds that it is evidently a painting of the 
time of James I., and that it bears a considerable resem- 
blance to the Death Mask. 

* Life Portraits, etc. London: 1 864, 8vo., p. 80. 



W§t gottst portrait 



From Engraving by W. Holl. 



THE ZOUST PORTRAIT. 



IN 1725, or thereabouts, a mezzotint by I. Simon was 
published, which claimed to represent Shakespeare. 
Underneath the print, it stated that it was from a paint- 
ing by Zoust, " in the collection of T. Wright, Painter, in 
Covent Garden." Malone, in his edition of Shakespeare 
published in 1 790, pointed out that if it was the work of 
Zoust (or Soest) it must have been a copy from some 
other artist, as the earliest known picture painted in 
England by Zoust was dated 1657. Another important 
fact is that Zoust gives his age on the frame of one of 
his pictures as thirty years in 1667, so that he must 
have been born in 1637, which was twenty-one years 
after Shakespeare's death. 

Malone also stated that he believed that the picture 
from which Simon's mezzotint was made was in the pos- 
session of Mr. Douglas, of Teddington, near Twicken- 
ham. Wivell saw William Douglas, wh*. told him that 
26 (201) 



202 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

the picture had been in his family for sixty years, but 
could not trace it any further — that Garrick and Sir 
Joshua Reynolds had seen and admired it while in the 
possession of Mr. Douglas' father, and Sir Joshua was 
very anxious to become its owner. 

Neither Mr. Douglas nor Wivell thought that the 
former's picture was the one from which Simon made 
his mezzotint, for Malone stated that the picture was 
twenty-four inches by twenty, while Douglas' picture 
was described in a sale catalogue of Sotheby's (by 
whom it was advertised for sale) as twenty inches by 
sixteen.* 

Douglas' picture was in the possession of Triphook, 
the London bookseller, for some time, and is described 
by Boaden as "pleasing and well painted," but not as 
fine as the original of Simon's print must have been. 
This original, Boaden believed to be in some one of the 
houses of the nobility.f 

Simon's mezzotint represents a face very different from 
any of the accepted portraits of Shakespeare. The face 
has a delicate expression, and is shown in a three-quarter 
view. The hair is profuse and curling, and of a brown 
color, covering the top of the head; the beard, which is 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 161. 
f An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 139. 






THE ZOUST PORTRAIT. 203 

full, is slight, and the moustache very slight. The collar 
is somewhat like that of the Chandos portrait, but with- 
out strings. The costume is rich, but plainly made. 

Wivell states that "Mr. Booth, Bookseller," had a 
small copy of this portrait by Cosway,* which was pur- 
chased at the sale of that artist's effects for about twenty 
pounds. This same copy is now owned by Mr. Lionel 
Booth, to whom all lovers of the poet are indebted for 
his marvellously accurate reprint of the First Folio. 

Douglas sold his picture to Sir John Lister Raye, 
Bart., of "The Grange," near Wakefield, Yorkshire, for 
four hundred pounds, prior to 1827. This was the larg- 
est price ever paid for a portrait of Shakespeare, as the 
Chandos portrait only sold for three hundred and fifty- 
five guineas in 1848. 

An excellent copy of Simon's mezzotint was engraved 
by W. Holl, for Wivell's Inquiry, 1827. 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 162. 



THE ZUCCHERO PORTRAIT. 



THIS portrait was formerly in the possession of R. 
Cosway, R.A., at whose house Boaden saw it. 
Cosway claimed that it was an original portrait of Shake- 
speare. It is on panel, and on the back of the picture 
were the words "Guglielm. Shakespeare." 

The picture could not have been painted by Zucchero, 
for it represents a man of at least thirty years of age, 
and Shakespeare having been born in 1564, his portrait, 
representing him of that age, could not be the work of 
an artist who left England about 1580. The latter came 
to England, from Flanders, in 1574, and while in Great 
Britain, painted two portraits of Queen Elizabeth, and 
one of Queen Mary of Scotland. He remained in Eng- 
land for five or six years, and was compelled to leave 
the country on account of having painted some of the 
Pope's officers with asses' ears, over the gate of St. 
Luke's Church. 

(204) 



W§t Zttcrfjero portrait. 



From Engraving by W. Holl. 



i 



THE ZUCCHERO PORTRAIT. 205 

Nothing further is known concerning the history of 
this portrait. Cosway did not give Boaden any informa- 
tion, beyond his belief that it was an original picture by 
Zucchero. 

The picture is of life size, in an oval, and delicately 
painted. It represents Shakespeare leaning on his right 
elbow. His hand supports his head, and the eyes look 
directly at the observer. They are very singular, being 
oblique and somewhat like a cat's. The hair is very 
thick and black, the beard full and dark, while an enor- 
mous collar, open very low at the neck, falls over the 
shoulders. The costume is very plain. On the table 
on which the poet leans his arm are some papers. 
Boaden thought it resembled Torquato Tasso more 
than Shakespeare, judging from the latter' s accepted 
portraits. It certainly is very unlike any portrait of 
Shakespeare, and the eyes alone are enough to con- 
demn it as a picture of the great poet. 

A mezzotint was made from this portrait by Henry 
Green, which was coarsely done, and very unlike the 
original picture. 

W. Holl engraved a well executed plate from the pic- 
ture itself, which was published in Wivell's Inquiry, in 
1827. 



THE BOARDMAN MINIATURE. 



THIS miniature, which is on copper, is seven and a 
quarter inches high, and five and a half inches 
wide. It is enclosed in an old carved oak frame, for- 
merly gilt, but now painted black, and is in the posses- 
sion of G. W. W. Firth, Esq., a surgeon, residing in 
Norwich, England. On the top of the frame there is 
a scroll, with the arms of Shakespeare, his crest, and 
motto: "Non sanz droict." Underneath the arms ap- 
pears the following inscription in gilt capital letters: 

OF RIGHTE WE HAYLE THEE MAYSTER OF THE GLOBE; 
THEE WHOM BEN'S VENOM'D SHAFTE OR SNAREFUL PRAISE 
HAVE NEERE HAD POWER TO BEREAVE OR ROBBE 
O' THE POET'S HIGHEST MEEDE, THE LIVING BAYES. 

The last words are in larger capitals than the rest, 
and under them is a sprig of laurel or bay. 

The picture represents the figure as far as the knees. 
Shakespeare is standing, with a pen in his hand, in the 
favorite style of representing literary composition, which 
we all know is never seen in real life. The costume 

(206) 



THE BOARDMAN MINIATURE. 207 

resembles that of the Chandos portrait, with linen collar 
and strings. The eyes are large, the forehead high, the 
hair a dark brownish black. The moustache is like that 
of the Stratford bust, and the upper lip also, like that 
effigy, is long. In fact, the whole appearance of the 
face very much resembles that of the Stratford bust, 
but the expression is weaker, and the complexion 
darker. The background has gold rubbed over it, and 
a curtain which is represented in the picture also has 
gold on it. Traces of the gold dust are also to be seen 
on the eyes and hair. In one corner of the picture is a 
small sketch of the Globe Theatre, with flag. 

It was long the property of Mr. R. R. Boardman, an 
antiquarian of Norwich. He purchased it of an auc- 
tioneer named Izard, and paid in the neighborhood of 
three hundred pounds for it. An offer of five hundred 
pounds made by a clergyman named Fisk, was refused 
by Boardman, who retained possession of it until his 
death, when it passed to Firth, who was Boardman's 
trustee. Where Boardman obtained it or any other 
details of its history are not known. 

In 1864, on the celebration of the anniversary of the 
three hundredth birthday of Shakespeare, at Stratford- 
upon-Avon, this miniature was exhibited among a large 
collection of portraits of the poet. It was called the "Nor- 
wich portrait" in the official catalogue of the exhibition. 



THE STACE PORTRAIT. 



MACHELL Stace, from whom this portrait receives 
its name, was a bookseller and dealer in pictures, 
who formerly resided in Middle Scotland Yard, London. 
Prior to 1 8 1 1 Stace bought the picture from a Mr. Lin- 
nell, of Streatham Street, Bloomsbury, who had purchased 
it of a Mr. Tuning, Great Queen Street, Lincoln's Inn 
Fields. It had been sold at auction, with other pictures 
which belonged to John Graham, Esq. He had pur- 
chased it of a Mr. Sathard, who kept a tavern called the 
"Old Green Dragon Public House." Sathard bought it 
at a sale at another tavern rejoicing in the classic name 
of the "Three Pigeons," where it was said to have been 
for many years. Such is the pedigree of this portrait 
as given by Stace. Whether it is founded on fact or 
drawn from his imagination there are now no means of 
ascertaining. 

The first impression on seeing this picture is that the 

(208) 



W$t State portrait 



From Engraving by W. Holl. 



THE STACE PORTRAIT. 2O0, 

eyes are too large. The hair is thick and long, the nose 
fine, and the mouth good. A small moustache and a 
goatee are all the beard that the figure has. The cos- 
tume is plain, with a small collar. Stace stated that it 
represented the poet at the age of thirty-three, but he 
forgot to tell us how he fixed the exact age. 

In 1 8 1 1 Stace had a large and striking print engraved 
by Robert Cooper. In addition to this he issued an en- 
graving showing the house where the picture was found, 
and he either seems to have believed in the authenticity 
of his portrait, or else he was an adept in the art of de- 
ceiving. 

In 1827 W. Holl copied Cooper's print for Wivell's 
Inquiry, in which it was published. It is a very good 
copy. 



27 



THE O'CONNELL PORTRAIT. 



THIS portrait, which has no history, is in the pos- 
session of J. O'Connell, Esq., of Laurel Street, 
London, who claims that it is the work of Mark Garrard. 
It is in very dilapidated condition, owing to bad usage 
and the thinness of the colors and want of body. It is 
on canvas, is of life size, and represents the figure to the 
waist. The forehead is high, the eyes of a bluish brown, 
and the hair and the beard flaxen. Its general appear- 
ance is like the Jansen portrait, and the collar is similar. 
The costume has been touched with gold. Mr. O'Con- 
nell is of the opinion that the whole background (which 
is now reddish brown) was originally gold. The hair has 
been covered with auburn, but the flaxen color shows in 
places, and the beard is of the original flaxen tint. 

In 1884 it was exhibited at the "Shakespeare Show," 
in the Albert Hall, London, where it attracted much 
attention. 

Friswell was of opinion that it was probably the work 
of Garrard, but considered it very doubtful if it was ever 
intended to represent Shakespeare. 

(210) 



&U* <&illilmXf Wovtvm, 



From Engraving by W. Holl. 



THE GILLILAND PORTRAIT. 



THIS curious portrait was formerly in the possession 
of Mr. Thomas Gilliland, of London. 

It is on canvas, but the latter has been mounted on 
board. On the back is the following history of the pic- 
ture: 

"This portrait of Shakespeare I cut from a picture 
about three feet square, containing several other por- 
traits in the same style of work. The picture was recently 
bought at the Custom House, by a picture dealer, of 
whom I purchased it, under a strong impression that it 
was painted about the time of Shakespeare, either by an 
artist who had seen him, or who copied a genuine por- 
trait of the poet now lost, as this likeness differs from all 
the portraits hitherto published or known. 

"Thomas Gilliland. 

"London, April 3, 1827." 

The picture is entirely different from all others which 
have been put forward as portraits of Shakespeare. The 
face is three-quarter view, the cheek bones are high and 
prominent, and the cheeks thin. The moustache is full, 

(211) 



212 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

and the beard a thick bunch on the chin. The hair is 
quite long and waving. The costume represents a 
loose gown, with a large plain collar worn over it. 

A good engraving of this portrait, by W. Holl, was 
published in 1827, in Wivell's Inquiry. It represents it 
with fidelity, and shows clearly that the portrait never 
was intended for a picture of Shakespeare. In nearly 
all of the others, whether genuine or forged, there can 
be traced some faint resemblance to the authentic por- 
traits, but in this there is none. 



THE HARDIE PORTRAIT. 



AVERY singular portrait, purporting to represent 
Shakespeare, was formerly in the possession of 
Dr. Hardie, of Manchester, England. At one time it 
was regarded by some persons as a genuine picture, but 
Wivell subsequently discovered that it was a forgery by 
Zincke. He had altered it from the portrait of a French 
dancing master, which he purchased for a few shillings. 
The Literary Journal for October 31, 181 8, describes 
it as being two feet eleven inches by two feet three 
inches in size, and says that the head is painted in a loz- 
enge shaped shield, "which is suspended in the talons 
of an eagle, with the following lines, in free old English 
characters, upon the lozenge, immediately under the 
head : — 

" Ye nutte browne haire, ye fronte serine 
Thatte placide mauthe, those smylinge eyne, 
Doe soon bewraye my Shakespeare's meine. 

"And below that, on an arabesque scroll, are the 
following : — 

( 2I 3) 



214 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

" His thunders lay'de aside, beholde 

Jove's fav'rite birde, now uncontroulled, 

Selecte ye gemme of human race 

And raise himme to th' Empyreane space ; 

Fitte statione for his loftie soule 

Whose piercinge eye survey'd ye whole 

Of Nature's vaste domayne, 

Then on Imagination's aierie winge 

Toe worldes unseene yth ardent soule cou'd springe, 

Deepe fraughte t'enriche ye nethere worlde again. 

"B. J." 

The Literary Journal ascribed these verses to Ben 
Jonson, but he never wrote such trash. Perhaps Zincke 
wrote them himself. The portrait was further described 
as having been well drawn and colored, and bearing a 
strong resemblance to the Stratford bust. 



THE LIDDELL PORTRAIT. 






THE Lidclell portrait is painted on an oak panel, 
and is three-quarter size. It was purchased by 
Thomas Liddell, Esq., of Portland Place, London, from 
a Mr. Lewis, of Charles Street, Soho, for thirty-nine 
pounds. It strongly resembles the Stratford bust, but 
Wivell noticed, when he went to see it (prior to 1827) 
that the hair, beard, mouth, and ruff seemed to have been 
altered from their original appearance. Thinking that 
these alterations might be the work of Edward Holder, 
who had made many spurious portraits of Shakespeare, 
he suggested this to Mr. Liddell, and proposed to bring 
Holder with him again to see the picture. Holder came 
to Wivell's house, and before the latter had even men- 
tioned Mr. Liddell's name to him, Holder asked whether 
the picture they were going to see was in that gentle- 
man's possession. While on their way to Mr. Liddell's 
house Wivell cautioned Holder not to deceive the owner 

(215) 



2l6 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

of the picture, but to tell the truth about it. Holder 
stated that he "had repaired no more than a small place 
in the cheek, and glazed the hair." 

As soon as they entered the room where the picture 
was, Holder pointed it out, and remarked that he 
"believed the portrait to be the most perfect and genu- 
ine of Shakespeare, and considered its value at two or 
three hundred pounds." The owner of the picture, 
however, thought it worth double that sum. 

Wivell questioned Holder further, asking him if he had 
not altered the mouth, the beard, and the ruff. He ac- 
knowledged that he had painted on the hair and the ruff, 
but not the beard. Wivell replied that he must have 
done so, as it was different from the moustache, which he 
believed to be genuine. 

Finally Holder acknowledged having purchased the 
picture from a Mr. Bryant, of Great Ormond Street. 
Going to Bryant, Wivell was informed by him that he 
had never sold the picture as a portrait of Shakespeare. 
Later Holder told Wivell that he had bought it at 
another shop, at the corner of Charles and Oxford 
Streets. Wivell went there with Holder, and while they 
were there Bryant happened to come in. He blamed 
Holder for having wrongfully stated the facts, and 
Wivell induced Bryant to accompany him to Mr. Lid- 



THE LIDDELL PORTRAIT. 21 7 

dell's. They went to that gentleman's house, and 
Bryant said that he was positive that the picture had 
been altered in the nose, the forehead made higher, the 
hair repainted, and an ear-ring added. A date which 
was originally in one corner, and which Bryant stated 
was after Shakespeare's death, had been painted out 
since he had had the picture. 

On the following day Mr. Liddell called on Wivell and 
told him that a distinguished artist had assured him that 
the portrait was a genuine one. An appointment was 
then made for this artist, Holder, and Wivell to meet 
at Mr. Liddell's house to examine the picture again. 
Wivell went, but was disgusted at finding that Mr. 
Liddell had gone out of town, and no one else keep- 
ing the engagement, he had his trouble for his pains. 



28 



THE DUNFORD PORTRAIT. 



IN Great Newport Street, London, there formerly lived 
a print-seller named Dunford, who became the 
owner of this portrait about 1814. He purchased it 
from Edward Holder, a repairer of old paintings, for 
four guineas. Wivell ascertained that it was a forgery, 
and that it had been altered from a picture which Holder 
purchased for a few shillings. Holder's plan of alter- 
ing pictures, as described by Kettle to Wivell, was by 
scraping off portions of the old painting with a knife, and 
then touching them up. A Mr. Hilder saw Holder at 
work on this very portrait, while it was being converted 
into one of Shakespeare. James Parry, an engraver, 
who lived in the same house with James Caulfield, (the 
latter possessing considerable knowledge of ancient por- 
traits,) was present when Holder brought the picture 
(previous to its alteration) to Caulfield for his inspection. 
The latter, in Parry's presence, told Holder that it was a 

(218) 



W§t 3Mttfortr portrait 



From Engraving by W. Sharp. 



THE DUNFORD PORTRAIT. 219 

portrait of a Dutch Admiral, but that with some altera- 
tions, it "would make a very good Shakespeare." 

W. Smith, a print-seller, stated that Holder brought 
the picture to him, and bought from him a couple of 
prints of Shakespeare. 

When the picture was first altered, it was offered for 
sale to Mr. Kettle, for three pounds ten shillings. The 
offer was declined, and then Holder tried to sell it to 
Smith, but he also declined it. Caulfield was present 
when Holder brought it to the latter, and complimented 
the forger on his successful alteration. Subsequently 
Dunford purchased it for four pounds ten shillings ; and 
while it was in his possession great numbers of people 
came to see it. Finally Dunford sold it for one hundred 
guineas to George Evans, Esq., of Beckenham, Kent. 
Considering that Dunford had only paid the forger four 
pounds ten shillings for it, this must be said to have been 
a very profitable sale to Dunford. Later it was sold at 
auction for forty guineas, at a sale of Evans' pictures, 
and purchased again by Dunford, under a commission 
given him by William Cattley, Esq. 

Finally Wivell learned where Holder was living, and 
applied to him for information concerning this picture. 
In reply Holder wrote Wivell as follows : 



220 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

"February 22nd, 1827. 
"Sir: 

"I have received your letter of the 19th instant, and 
in answer to your request, I will give every particular of 
the portrait I sold to Mr. Dunford, as a Shakespeare, 
(except the way by which I did it.) 

"I bought the picture in New Turnstile, Holborn, for 
five shillings. It had been a large panel picture, of which 
this was the centre board, which I also reduced in order to 
make it more shapeable. I hung it up for some time in 
my painting room, as a study, for I admired it much. At 
last a thought came into my head, that it might be made 
into a Shakespeare, which I had never before attempted. 
Mr. Zincke, who then worked with me, approved of my 
plan, and I accordingly did so; without bestowing much 
time, as I did not intend to ask a large price. The body- 
garment was originally white, the earring, with other re- 
quisites, I put. When done, I added to it a frame ; which 
I think cost me thirty shillings ; and offered the whole to 
Mr. Dunford for five pounds. After he had looked at it 
for some time, he bid me four pounds ten shillings, which 
I accepted. Some few days after, Mr. Dunford came, and 
told me that I had sold him a great bargain, for which he 
would not take a thousand pounds. I was requested to 
call on him. I did so, and seeing him so very sanguine 
of his great bargain, I hoped he would not refuse a good 



THE DUNFORD PORTRAIT. 221 

offer when made, as I knew more about the picture than 
he imagined. To which he answered sharply, 'What, Sir, 
do you mean to say it is painted by yourself?' To which 
I made no reply. He again made answer, 'I did not 
know more about it than Mr. West or Sir T. Lawrence, 
and four hundred other competent judges, but that him- 
self could not be deceived.' I found it was no use talk- 
ing any more on the subject, so left him, with the obser- 
vation, that they were blind altogether. 

"I have not since then been able to see this picture, 
but judging from the print I do not perceive any good 
has been done by the analyzation it underwent, by my 
late beloved master, Mr. Hammond, whose abilities, in 
the art of repairing, was to the greatest perfection. 

"It has since been said by Mr. Dunford to some of my 
friends, that he had made me a present of fifty pounds, 
but of which I have never received one shilling. I have 
never been inclined to dupe the world, as many have 
done in my situation of life; my object has ever been to 
sell my pictures cheap. I have a wife and nine children 
to support, and had I the advantages which others have 
made by my works, I should not be the poor man I now 
am. I am, Sir, 

"Your most obedient humble servant, 

"Edward Holder. 
"No. j, Little Cambridge Street, Hackney Road. 



222 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 

"N.B. I afterwards made another Shakespeare, which 
was worth a score such as the above. I sold it to Mr. 
Gwennap, in Brook Street, Grosvenor Square, for six 
pounds, which is the most I ever got for one. Mr. Gwen- 
nap questioned me if I had manufactured it, to which I 
answered in the affirmative ; when he replied, had I asked 
him sixty pounds for it, he should have given it to me."* 

As Holder's skill was doubted by Dunford, the former 
proceeded to make a portrait of a clergyman into one of 
Oliver Cromwell, which he sent by a messenger to 
Dunford. It was sold to him for four pounds, and was 
afterwards seen in Dunford' s shop window, where it was 
doubtless much admired as a portrait of the Lord Pro- 
tector! It is sad to think of a man, possessing the talent 
that Holder must have had, prostituting his abilities in 
this way. No doubt it was his poverty, and not his will, 
that consented. 

The picture is unlike the other portraits of Shake- 
speare. The features are good — the nose being espe- 
cially well done. The eyes have a serious expression, 
the hair is long and curling, the costume simple. A 
large, plain collar covers the shoulders completely, and 
has very small strings. The moustache is brushed up- 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 182. It would be interesting to know 
what has become of Mr. Gwennap's picture. 



THE DUNFORD PORTRAIT. 223 

wards, and a beard, which is light on the cheeks, covers 
the chin. 

C. Turner engraved a large mezzotint, the size of life, 
from this portrait in 1815. Only two hundred and fifty 
copies were printed from this plate, which was then de- 
faced. This has made the prints very rare. 

The next year (18 16), W. Sharp executed a beautiful 
plate, in his best manner, from the picture. It is sur- 
rounded by a neat frame, and is a very attractive print. 

W. Holl next engraved the picture in 1827 for 
Wivell's Inquiry. It is very well done, and a good 
copy of Sharp's print, but not as fine as the latter. 

In 1870 was published Shakespeare and the Emblem 
Writers, 8vo. This work was written by Henry Green, 
and on the title-page appears a small wood-cut, which 
bears a striking resemblance to Sharp's engraving of 
this portrait and Holl's copy of it. The beard is higher 
up on the cheek than in those engravings, but that may 
be the fault of the engraver of the wood-cut. It is 
stated that it is from an oil painting in the possession 
of Dr. Charles Clay, of Manchester, England. Can it 
be that Dr. Clay now possesses the Dunford portrait? 
Mr. Green does not give any pedigree of the picture. 



THE WINSTANLEY PORTRAIT. 



ON February 10, 1819, Thomas Winstanley, an auc- 
tioneer, of Liverpool, wrote a letter to The Lit- 
erary Gazette, which was published February 20, 18 19. 
In this he described a portrait of Shakespeare in his 
possession, which he stated he had purchased from a 
dealer, who had obtained it from a pawnbroker. Win- 
stanley also said that a friend, whose opinion of a work 
of art was of much value, had pronounced it to be the 
work of Paul Vansomer; that it was in a fine state of 
preservation, and had the appearance of having been 
painted in Shakespeare's time. 

Winstanley continues: "The picture shows only the 
head and a small part of the shoulders, the size of life. 
The dress is black, with a white collar thrown plain over 
the shoulders, and tied before with a cord and tassels. 
The portrait is under an arch, in the inside of which run 
the holly, the ivy, and the mistletoe. Under the portrait 

(224) 



THE WINSTANLEY PORTRAIT. 225 

are two laurel leaves, on which are written, in old Eng- 
lish characters, the following lines: 

" ' As Holly, Ivie, Miseltoe defie the wintrye blast 

Despite of chillinge Envie, soe thy well earned fame shall laste 
Then lette the ever-living laurel beare 
Thy much loved name O Will. Shakspeare. 

"'B. I.'" 

Ben Jonson could never have written this, and the 
duplication of the consonants is more than suspicious. 
But the forger of this portrait is known to have been 
W. F. Zincke, who made a business of altering pictures. 
He bought the picture originally from a Mr. Piercy. It 
then represented an elderly female, but Zincke altered 
her features into a semblance of Shakespeare. Having 
finished his alterations, he sold the picture to a pawn- 
broker named Benton, who in turn parted with it to 
a friend of Winstanley, and from him Winstanley ob- 
tained it. 

It is said that four or five hundred pounds was the 
price asked for it by Winstanley, but no record of its 
sale has been preserved. An engraving from this pic- 
ture, in outline, was published, with the four lines of 
"verse" given above. 



29 






THE ZINCKE PORTRAIT. 



W. 



F. ZINCKE, an artist who seems to have vied 
with Edward Holder in the manufacture of 
spurious portraits of Shakespeare, was the painter of 
this picture. 

The portrait is in an oval and shows the full face. 
The shape of the head, the arrangement of the hair and 
beard, all bear considerable resemblance to the Stratford 
bust, which Zincke appears to have taken as his model. 
On one side of the oval in which the picture is painted is 
a sketch of the poet with his dog and gun, and on the 
other side he is shown as a boy holding a horse — the 
latter being a representation of the story of his having 
followed that occupation while a youth. 

Under one side of the oval is written "Paynted by me, 
R. Bvrbage" and palm and oak leaves hang over the 
sides. On the back of the picture Zincke had pasted two 
pieces of paper, one purporting to contain some lines by 

(226) 






W$t Zintttt portrait 



From Engraving by W. Holl. 





[/'Wfirtte(6wgfi^%ce«fF<tm«.^p!flt' H».«Mjirtoe /tt^vppe o'eu flows 

II orBUPTVReo mrawots.nij'Mont '' Bay?0^m« h« Gyffr&ijevLO lacszowe 

• |knfunaxncfyAcl W c«vioc«t £H«v Reswae UoncejnoetfteimsOioseiKoweswB^cHZe.soBWrtDejJ 

2jH«weMMoaB9vcH«3^t*M«Heeeii« tH€ rw«c m»w.o«H€«Hl»«ey*WJ"»/CTe ofm^eSM. ft 

^fJHtU^W&ynos f.3*vtitrD''sHAnDef<<Ri!oeM€a«!.UM.CoosvyepooB6Vfl!tSH^«spea£ 




5hc fljvses us© we t ».«?£!)?<? ^HaKORMtYiieECMViLO'e.. 

JJVtR OiaiCf IB /€£CRRVm KPRI1.IS ■!e*S"*ffl.e6!6 



: 




,.- ' ' 



THE ZINCKE PORTRAIT. 227 

Ben Jonson, and the other the following : " Henry Spel- 
man, Esq., the gyfte of John Selden, Esq., the 4th daye 
of May, 1640." The canvas was pieced in two places, 
and had been so treated as to look old, though quite 
new. 

Zincke was a man of some ability, and had he applied 
his talents to an honest purpose might have produced 
good work. Wivell says that he purchased this picture 
of Zincke on account of the ingenuity displayed in it, and 
adds: "It is most pitiable to see an old man, for want of 
a more honest employment, obliged to have recourse to 
such means as fabricating portraits of Shakespeare, or 
otherwise starve."* 

A capital engraving of it, by W. Holl, was published 
in 1827, in Wivell's Inquiry. 

* An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo. Supplement, p. 32. 






THE TALMA PORTRAIT. 



WF. ZINCKE, who had already appeared as the 
• fabricator of other spurious portraits of the 
poet, altered this one from another picture. It is on the 
wooden part of a pair of bellows, and Zincke concocted 
a wonderful story about a friend of his finding it in an 
old tavern. It was sold by one Foster to a Mr. Allen for 
a small sum. Foster told Wivell, in 1827, that he knew 
it was not an original portrait, and he had sold about 
thirty of "these mock original Shakespeares," and that 
he "never got more than six or eight guineas for the 
best, and I can assure you that I found it difficult to per- 
suade many of the purchasers that they were not origi- 
nals." Allen sold the picture to W. H. Ireland for eighty 
pounds. The condition of the sale, however, was that if 
there was any repainting or alteration on the picture it 
was to be returned to the seller. It was accordingly in- 
trusted to a restorer and cleaner of pictures, a Mr. Ribet, 
who had no trouble in removing Zincke's paint, when an 
old lady with cap and blue ribbons appeared! 

Ribet was employed to repair the picture, and soon 
made it a Shakespeare again. It was then taken to 

(228) 



THE TALMA PORTRAIT. 229 

France and sold to Talma, the actor, for a thousand 
francs. He had an elaborate case made for it of green 
morocco, lined with silk. 

While in Talma's possession it was seen by a Mr. 
Brockedon, who informed its owner that Zincke had 
altered it into a portrait of Shakespeare. Talma had al- 
ways believed that it was a genuine portrait of the poet, 
and was much disappointed to find that he was mistaken. 

When Talma died this pair of bellows was sold, among 
his other effects, and brought three thousand one hun- 
dred francs. It is related that on one occasion Charles 
Lamb saw this picture, and fell down on his knees and 
kissed it! 

As before stated, the portrait was on the wooden part 
of a pair of bellows. The following inscription, carved 
on the wood, was also on them: 

" Whom have we here 

Stucke onne the bellowes ? 
That prynce of goode fellowes, 

Willie Shakspere. 
Oh ! Curste untowarde lucke, 
to be thus meanlie stucke. 

" POINS. 

" naye, rather glorious lotte 

to hymme assygn'd, 
Who, lyke th' almightie rydes 

The wynges oth' wynde. 
"Pystolle." 



THE MONUMENT IN WESTMINSTER 

ABBEY. 



THE monument of Shakespeare in Westminster 
Abbey is from a design by W. Kent, and was 
executed by P. Scheemakers. It was erected in 1741. 
The funds required were raised by two performances 
given in the theatres, and the committee having the mat- 
ter in charge consisted of the Earl of Burlington, Dr. 
Mead, Mr. Pope and Mr. Martin. 

The poet is represented as leaning his right elbow on 
some books, which rest on a column. The head of the 
figure is somewhat like the Chandos portrait; the dress 
a doublet, knee breeches and cloak, which latter hangs 
from one shoulder. With his left hand he points to a 
scroll with an inscription on it from The Tempest. As a 
work of art it does not rank very high. 

Several engravings have been made of this monument, 
the first by J. Maurer in 1 742, the next by Miller in mez- 
zotint. The latter is of folio size and very rare. 

(230) 



W$t $Wonumtnt in Wit&ttnimttv gtobtg. 



From Engraving by B. Holl. 



.... , :., ,... ....:::.. • ... 




THE MONUMENT IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY. 23 1 

About this time a large plate of the monument, by H. 
Gravelot, was published. This must not be confounded 
with a smaller plate by the same engraver which was 
published in Hanmer's Shakespeare, first edition, 1744, 
and again used in the second edition of his work, 1 77 1. 
Both these engravings are well done, and accurately 
represent the monument. 

Other plates by Dubose, Halpin, and Rothwell were 
also published ; and a small engraving showing the iron 
railing around the monument was published in 1787 in 
Bell's Shakespeare, i6mo. The latter is very poor. 

Finally, in 1827, Wivell published an excellent engrav- 
ing of this pretentious monument in his Inquiry. It is 
by B. Holl and is very well done. 

Photographs have also been taken, but owing to the 
position of the monument in the Abbey it is difficult to 
get a good light on the face, and they have not been 
very successful. 



THE SHAKESPEARE GALLERY ALTO 
RELIEVO. 



WHEN Boydell employed the best English artists 
of his day to paint the pictures which he after- 
ward had engraved, he also caused to be made for the 
front of the Shakespeare Gallery, Pall Mall, London, a 
large monument in alto relievo, which was designed and 
executed by J. Banks, RA. 

Shakespeare is represented seated on a rock. He 
leans his left hand on the shoulder of an allegorical fig- 
ure of a woman representing the Genius of Painting, who 
has a palette and brushes in one hand, while with the 
other she points to the poet as the best subject for her 
talent. The other allegorical figure is also a woman, 
who represents the Dramatic Genius, who is figured 
with a lyre, while she offers a wreath to the poet. The 
allegorical figures are well done, especially the Genius of 
Painting, whose figure is very graceful and charming, 

( 2 32) 



&$t &t)uUtupwvt <&%UtV8 MUa=1Xtlittoo. 



From Engraving by B. Holl. 



THE SHAKESPEARE GALLERY ALTO RELIEVO. 233 

but the poet has not fared so well. The face has often 
been mistaken for George Washington, to whom the re- 
semblance is striking. 

The Alto Relievo was removed from London some 
years ago, and was presented by Mr. C. Holte Brace- 
bridge to Shakespeare's Garden at New Place, Strat- 
ford-upon-Avon, where it now is. The stone from which 
the monument was cut is very soft, and owing to this 
unfortunate circumstance, it has suffered somewhat from 
exposure to the weather.* 

A beautiful engraving of the Alto Relievo, of large 
folio size, was published by Boydell in 1 798, as a frontis- 
piece to his large series of illustrations of Shakespeare. 
It is engraved by James Stow. A smaller engraving 
by B. Smith was published in Boydell's edition of the 
poet's works. It is also very well done. 

It was likewise engraved by Burnet Reading ; Vitalba ; 
S. Rawle, 1804; Girtin and Scriven, 1804, and by W. 
Humphry, 1826. A neat engraving of this group by B. 
Holl was published in 1827 in Wivell's Inquiry. 



* This information was communicated by Samuel Timmins, Esq., J. P., to whom 
the present writer is indebted for this, and numberless other acts of kindness. 



30 



THE ROUBILIAC STATUE. 



IN 1758 Lewis Francis Roubiliac sculptured this statue 
of Shakespeare for David Garrick. The latter, by 
his will, provided that it should go to the British Mu- 
seum after the death of his wife, and it is now there. 

It represents the poet leaning on a stand covered with 
drapery, in the act of composition. The face is taken 
from the Chandos portrait, and the costume is a doublet 
and knee breeches. Over all is thrown a loose cloak, 
which hangs from his shoulders. 

Adrien Carpentiers painted a portrait of Roubiliac 
which represents him as finishing the model of this statue. 
This picture was engraved by D. Martin in 1765, and an 
excellent plate of the same portrait by W. Holl was pub- 
lished in WivelPs Inquiry, 1827. 



( 2 34) 



art)* EtottfrUiac Statue, 



From Engraving by W. Holl. 









. 



®t>t smatrtr Statue* 



From Photograph of Original by Rockwood. 



! 



THE WARD STATUE. 



THIS statue, which is the work of Mr. J. Q. A. Ward, 
was erected in Central Park, New York, May 23, 
1872. In modelling the head Mr. Ward has closely fol- 
lowed the Stratford bust, but he has given the face a 
much more intellectual expression than appears in that 
effigy. The cheeks are thinner and the face more re- 
fined, and yet one can see at a glance that the Stratford 
bust has been the model. 

The poet is represented standing, as if lost in thought. 
He holds a book in his right hand and has his finger 
between the leaves to keep the place where he has been 
reading. The left hand rests on the hip, and the head 
is inclined slightly forward. The costume consists of 
doublet and hose, with puffed-out breeches, and a cloak 
hanging from the left shoulder, and is very graceful and 
well conceived. 

The statue is larger than life and is made of bronze. 
It has been admirably photographed by Rockwood, of 
New York; and a poor and spiritless wood engraving 
of it, by Davis, appeared in The Aldine in 1872. 

(235) 



INDEX 



INDEX. 



A DLARD, H., his engraving of Mar- 
* *■ shall' s copy of the Droeshout, 66. 
Adolphus, Gustavus, 93, 99. 
Agar, his engraving of the Hilliard minia- 
ture, 184, 186. 
I. S., his engraving of the Stratford 

bust, 40. 
Albert Hall, 191, 210. 
Allen, bought the Talma portrait, and sold 

it to W. H. Ireland, 228. 
Alto Relievo, the Shakespeare Gallery, 232. 
Amsterdam, 102, 103, 122, 123, 124. 
Anecdotes of Painting, Walpole's, 123. 
Anne, effigy of, in. 
Apostool, C, his engraving of the Chan- 

dos portrait, 87. 
Archaeological Association, visit of the, to 

see the Stratford portrait, 156. 
Arlaud, B., his drawing of the Chandos 

portrait, 83. 
Armstrong, Cosmo, his engraving of the 

Felton portrait, 151. 



Artlett, R. A., his engraving of the Chandos 

portrait, 92. 
Art Museum, Boston, 197. 
Arundel Society, its photograph of the 
Chandos portrait, 78, 79, 80. 
Its photograph of the Hampton Court 
portrait, 181. 
Ashborne portrait, 166. 

Compared with the Jansen portrait, 

169. 
Description of the, 169. 
G. F. Storm's mezzotint of the, 170. 
Its history amounts to nothing, 169. 
Ashby, R., his engraving of the Stratford 

bust, 39. 
Athenceum, The, 159, 1 60. 

Article on the Chandos portrait, 73, 74. 
Audinet, his engraving of the Chandos 

portrait, 86. 
Auriol, Charles, 189. 
Auriol miniature, 190. 



(239) 



240 



INDEX. 



T)ACON, Sir Francis, search for his 

■*-*' body, 13. 

Banks, J., designed and executed the Shake- 
speare Gallery Alto Relievo, 232. 

Barnes, J., 177. 

Barry, Mrs., her purchase of the Chandos 
portrait, 69. 

Battersea, 189. 

Bayeux, Bishop of, his tomb opened, 4. 

Becker, Dr. Ernst, now has the Death 
Mask, 112. 

Becker, Ludwig, his account of the dis- 
covery of the Death Mask, 96. 
Death of, 112. 

Mentioned, 94, 95, 96, 98, IOI. 
Went to England, 112. 
Went to Melbourne, 112. 

Bell, John, thought that the Stratford bust 
was from a mask, 33. 

Bell,R.C.,his engraving of the Droeshout, 65 . 

Ben Jonson, 11, 19, 46, 50, 51, 101, 102, 
172, 214, 225. 
His grave examined, 11. 

Bennett, S., his engraving of the Chandos 
portrait, 87. 

Benton, originally owned the Winstanley 
portrait, 225. 

Berg, Hermann, his drawing of the Chan- 
dos portrait, 92. 

Betterton, his purchase of the Chandos 
portrait, 69, 71. 

Birmingham Archaeological Association, 
visit of the, to see the Stratford por- 
trait, 156. 



Birrell, A., his engraving of the Stratford 

bust, 38. 
Blackfriars, 124. 
Bloomsbury, 208. 
Blount, Mountjoy, his portrait engraved by 

Droeshout, 47. 
Boaden, J., his drawing of the Stratford 
bust, 40. 

His search for the Jansen portrait, 
130. 

On the Chandos portrait, 81. 

On the Droeshout engraving, 48. 

On the Felton portrait, 146. 

On the Hilliard miniature, 184. 

On the Jansen portrait, 132. 

On the John Wilson Croker copy of 
the Jansen portrait, 134. 

On the Stratford bust, 29. 

On the Zoust portrait, 202. 

Saw the Zucchero portrait at R. Cos- 
way's, 204. 

Says that Ut magus is on the Jansen 
portrait, 133. 

Thought that the Zucchero portrait re- 
sembled Torquato Tasso, 205. 
Boardman miniature, 206. 

Called the Norwich portrait, 207. 

Costume of the, resembles that of the 
Chandos portrait, 207. 

Description of the, 206. 

Fisk offered five hundred pounds for 
the, 207. 

History of the, 207. 

Inscription on the, 206. 



INDEX. 



24I 



Boardman miniature, in the possession of 
G. W. W. Firth, 206. 
Izard owned the, 207. 
Moustache of the, like that of the 
Stratford bust, 207. 
Boardman, R. R., was long the owner of 

the Boardman miniature, 207. 
Bohn, on the Droeshout engraving, 47. 
Booth, 203. 
Booth, Lionel, had a copy of the Zoust 

portrait, 203. 
Boston Art Museum portrait, 196. 
Description of the, 198. 
Its history, 196. 

Sonrel's photographs of the, 197, 198. 
Boswell, James, 182, 183. 

On the Felton portrait, 145. 
Boydell, 232, 233. 
Boy dell, J., his drawing of the Stratford 

bust, 38. 
Boydell, Josiah, his copy of the Felton por- 
trait, 147. 
Made a copy of the Felton portrait for 
George Steevens, 145. 
Bracebridge, C. Holte, presented the Shake- 
speare Gallery Alto Relievo to Shake- 
speare's Garden, New Place, 233. 
British Museum, ill, 112, 113. 
Britton, John, induced George Bullock to 
make a cast of the Stratford bust, 33. 
On the Droeshout engraving, 48. 
Brocas, H., his engraving of the Droeshout, 
60. 



Brook Street, 222. 

Brooks, Vincent, his chromo-lithograph of 
the Lumley portrait, 195. 

Bryant, 216, 217. 

Owned the Liddell portrait before it 
was forged by Holder, 216. 

Buckingham, Duke of, 69. 

Buckingham, Duchess of, 69, 70. 

Buckland, Frank, account of his efforts to 
examine Ben Jonson's skull, 11. 

Bullock, George, made a cast of the Strat- 
ford bust, 33. 

Burbage, Richard, 68, 70, 72. 

His portrait at Dulwich College, 72. 

Burdett Coutts, Baroness, the Lumley por- 
trait purchased by, 193. 

Burges, Sir James Bland, 182, 183. 

Burlington House, 191. 

Burn, George Adam, 191. 

Burn portrait, 191. 

Description of the, 191. 
Has no history, 191. 
Resemblance of, to the Stratford bust, 
191. 

Burney, his drawing of the Chandos por- 
trait, 87. 

Burns, Robert, his body examined, 11. 



/CAERNARVON, Marquis of, 69, 70. 
— Capell, his Notes and Various Read- 
ings, 126. 
Cardinal Wolsey, 179. 



31 



242 



INDEX. 



Carus, in. 

Cattley, William, 219. 

Caulfield, James, 218, 219. 

Central Park, 235. 

Cervantes, age of when he died, 119. 

Death of, 118. 

Description of appearance of, 118. 

The Death Mask, suggested as repre- 
senting, 118. 
Challis portrait, 199. 

Description of the, 199. 

Friswell on the, 199. 

Has no history, 199. 

Its resemblance to the Death Mask, 
200. 
Challis, Thomas, 199. 
Chandos, Duke of, 69, 70. 
Chandos portrait, 67, 119, 127, 175,177, 
178, 193, 194, 195, 200, 203. 

Apostool's engraving of the, 87. 

Arundel Society's photograph of the, 
78, 79, 80. 

Audinet's engraving of the, 86. 

B. Arlaud's drawing of the, 83. 

B. Holl's engraving of the, 89, 90. 
Betterton's purchase of the, 69, 71. 
Boaden on the, 81. 

Burney's drawing of the, 87. 

C. Knight's engraving of the, 85. 
Dean's engraving of the, 88. 
Description of the, 74. 

Dr. C. M. Ingleby on the, 79. 
Edward Smith's engraving of the, 89. 



Chandos portrait, E. Scriven's engraving of 

the, 90. 
Frank Jones' chromo-lithograph of the, 

92. 
Freeman's engraving of the, 89. 
Friswell on the, 81. 
Fry's engraving of the, 87. 
G. Dalziel's engraving of the, 91. 
G. Duchange's engraving of the, 83. 
G. Greatbach's engraving of the, 91. 
George Scharf on the, 75, 80. 
Goldar's engraving of the, 85. 
G. Vander Gucht's engraving of the, 

84, 86. 
G. Vertue's engraving of the, 83, 84. 
Heath's engraving of the, 88. 
Hermann Berg's drawing of the, 92. 
H. Gravelot's engraving of the, 84. 
Holl's engraving of the, 86. 
Hollis' engraving of the, 90. 
Houbraken's engraving of the, 84. 
H. Robinson's engraving of the, 89. 
H. Rodd on the, 76. 
Its pedigree not capable of proof, 71. 
James Faed's engraving of the, 92. 
John Cochran's engraving of the, 89. 
John Faed's painting of the, 91. 
John Hall's engraving of the, 85. 
John Payne Collier on the, 72. 
John Thompson's engraving of the, 88. 
Le Goux's engraving of the, 86. 
Lud. du Guernier's engraving of the, 

83- 



INDEX. 



243 



Chandos portrait, more like the Stratford 
bust than the Droeshout engraving, 
80. 

Mrs. Barry's purchase of the, 69. 

M. Vander Gucht's engraving of the, 
82. 

Nicoll, Nicholl, or Nicholls' owner- 
ship of the, 69, 70, 73. 

N. Parr's engraving of the, 86. 

Oldy's notes to Langbaine, on the, 73. 

Ozias Humphry's drawing of the, 77. 

Preston's photograph of the, 92. 

P. Rohrbach's lithograph of the, 92. 

P. W. Tomkins' engraving of the, 87. 

R. A. Artlett's engraving of the, 92. 

Resemblance of the Lumley portrait 
to the, 194. 

R. Corbould's drawing of the, 87. 

Robert Keek's purchase of the, 69, 70. 

Samuel Cousins' mezzotint of the, 79, 
90. 

S. Bennett's engraving of the, 87. 

Scriven's engraving of the, 88. 

S. Freeman's engraving of the, 90. 

S. Harding's drawing of the, 86. 

Sir Joshua Reynolds on the, 75. 

Sir Joshua Reynolds said to have 
made a copy of the, 72. 

Steevens on the, 77. 

Supposed to represent Shakespeare as 
Shylock, 82. 

T. Cook's engraving of the, 85. 

T. D. Scott's drawing of the, 91. 



Chandos portrait, The Athenceum article 
on the, 73, 74. 
The best known of all the portraits 

of Shakespeare, 67. 
The costume of the Boardman minia- 
ture resembles it, 207. 
The face of the Roubiliac statue some- 
what like the, 234. 
The Hampton Court portrait resembles 

it somewhat, 180. 
Vander Gucht's drawing of the, 130. 
W. Harvey's drawing of the, 88. 
W. Holl's engraving of the, 89. 
William Page on the, 78. 
Wivell's drawing of the, 88, 89. 
Chantrey, Sir Francis, thought that the 
Stratford bust was from a mask, 33. 
Charlecote Hall, 124. 
Charles I., 178, 179. 

His body examined, 8. 
Charles II., 172, 173, 180. 
Charles Street, 216. 
Chaucer, 194. 
Chauvel, 149. 
Chelsea, 125. 
Chetwin, P., 173. 
Chromo-lithograph, by Vincent Brooks, of 

the Lumley portrait, 195. 
Chromo-phototype, New Shakespeare So- 
ciety's of the Stratford bust, 44. 
Clay, Dr. Charles, supposed to now own 

the Dunford portrait, 223. 
Clift, William, 174, 175, 176. 



244 



INDEX. 



Clopton, Edward, 155. 

Clopton House, the Stratford portrait pur- 
chased at a sale at the, 153. 

Clopton, Sir Hugh, 155. 

Cochran, John, his engraving of the Chan- 
dos portrait, 89. 
His engraving of the Felton portrait, 
152. 

College of Surgeons, 174, 176. 

Collier, John Payne, his paper on the 
Chandos portrait, 72. 

Collins, Simon, cleaned off the white paint 
from the Stratford bust, 26. 
Cleaned the Stratford portrait, 153. 
His photographs of the Stratford por- 
trait, 163. 
Mentioned, 153, 154, 156, 157, 159, 
162, 163. 

Collyer, J., his engraving of the Felton por- 
trait, 151. 

Cologne, 93, 94, 99, 112. 

Combe, John, 22. 

Condell, Henry, 45. 

Cook, H., his engraving of the Droeshout, 
62. 

Cook, T., his engraving of the Chandos 
portrait, 85. 

Cooper, R., his engraving of Croker's copy 
of the Jansen portrait, 134. 
His engraving of the Jansen portrait, 

137- 

His engraving of the Stace portrait, 209. 
Copeland, 173. 



Corbould, R., his drawing of the Chandos 

portrait, 87. 
Cosway, R., could not give Boaden any 
information concerning the Zucchero 
portrait, 205. 
Owned the Zucchero portrait, 204. 
Cousins, Samuel, his mezzotint of the 

Chandos portrait, 79, 90. 
Critical Revinu, the, 127, 128. 
Croker, John Wilson, the discovery of his 
copy of the Jansen portrait, 135. 
His copy of the Jansen portrait, 134. 
Cromwell, Oliver, 179. 

Appearance of the eye in Mask of, 115. 
Effigy of, in. 

His portrait manufactured out of a 
clergyman's by Holder, 222. 
Crystal Palace, 175. 
Curzon, Penn Asheton, 130. 



"pvALLAWAY, 124, 125. 

■^^^ Dalziel, G., his engraving of the 

Chandos portrait, 91. 
Darmstadt, 94, 112, 113, 119. 
D'Avenant, Sir William, 68, 69, 70, 172, 

173, I78- 
His edition of Alacbeth, 173. 
Davenport, Rev. Dr., t,i. 
Davis, his engraving of the Ward statue, 

235- 
Dead, features and clothing of, often pre- 
served, 3. 



INDEX. 



245 



Dean, his engraving of the Chandos por- 
trait, 88. 
Dean, T. A., his engraving of the Stratford 

bust, 40. 
Death Mask, 93, 177, 200. 

Comparison of, with the Stratford bust, 
116. 

Crayon drawing of Page's bust, from 
the, 120. 

Discovery of the, 96, 97. 

Friswell on the appearance of the left 
eye of the, 115. 

Friswell thinks that the Kesselstadt 
picture is a copy from the, 101. 

Hairs on the, 104, 105. 

Healthy appearance of the, 115. 

Inscription on back of the, 97, 108. 

Is in a fair state of preservation, 107. 

J. Niessen's portrait from the, 121. 

Lines cut in the moustache and goatee 
of the, 107. 

Photographs of the, 1 21. 

Resemblance of the Duke of Devon- 
shire bust to the, 177. 

The Jansen portrait more nearly re- 
sembles it than any other, 133. 

The price asked for the, 113. 

William Page's bust from the, 120. 

William Page had the greatest faith in 
the, 119. 

William Page made masks from the, 
119. 



Death Mask, William Page on the appear- 
ance of the left eye in the, 115. 
William Page's portrait from the, 121. 
W. J. Thorns suggested that it repre- 
sented Cervantes, 118. 
Delattre, his engraving of Marshall's copy 

of the Droeshout, 66. 
Digges, L., lines on Shakespeare, 23. 
D'Lisles, 179. 
Douglas, William, 201. 
Dramatic Genius, 232. 
Droeshout engraving, 45, 119, 141, 147, 
200. 
Augustus Fox's engraving of, 62. 
Boaden on the, 48. 
Bohn on the, 47. 
Cannot be successfully copied on wood, 

63- 
C. Picart's engraving of the, 62. 
Dr. Ingleby on the, 49. 
Engravers have tried to improve the, 

59- 
Friswell on the, 49. 
F. W. Fairholt on the Halliwell-Phil- 

lipps copy of the, 53. 
George Steevens on the, 48. 
H. Brocas' engraving of the, 60. 
H. Cook's engraving of the, 62. 
Heliotypes of the, 65. 
H. Robinson's engraving of the, 63. 
Its merits discussed, 50. 
J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps' copy of the, 

52. 



246 



INDEX. 



Droeshout engraving, J. 0. Halliwell-Phil- 
lipps on the, 50. 

John Britton on the, 48. 

J. Swaine's engraving of the, 61. 

Lenox on the Halliwell-Phillipps copy 
of the, 57. 

Lines on the, 46. 

Marshall's copy of the, 59. 

Opinions of critics on the merits of, 
have been various, 47. 

Photographs of, not generally success- 
ful, 64. 

Photographs of the, 64, 65. 

Photo-lithographic copies of the, 64, 65. 

Photo-zincographic copy of, 64. 

Probably from a painting, 51. 

R. C. Bell's engraving of the, 65. 

Rivers' engraving of the, 61. 

R. Sawyer's engraving of the, 61. 

Samuel Ireland's engraving of the, 61. 

Steevens believed that it was from the 
Felton portrait, 51. 

Steevens on the, 141. 

Supposed to represent Shakespeare in 
a theatrical costume, 51. 

The copy of, in Bell's edition of Shake- 
speare, 60. 

The copy of, in Forster's Few Re- 
marks, etc., 63. 

The copy of, in Grant White's edition 
of Shakespeare, 63. 

The copy of, in Johnson and Steevens' 
edition of Shakespeare, 1778, 60. 



Droeshout engraving, the copy of, in 
Knight's Cabinet edition of Shake- 
speare, 63. 

The copy of, in Mary Cowden Clarke's 
edition of Shakespeare, 65. 

The copy of, in The Legend of Shake- 
speare's Crab Tree, 63. 

The copy of, in the reprint of the First 
Folio, 1807, 61. 

The copy of, published about 1827 by 
W. Smith, 62. 

The differences between J. O. Halli- 
well-Phillipps' copy of, and the 
ordinary impressions, 52. 

The Felton portrait not the original of 
the, 51. 

Thurston's drawing of the, 61. 

Unlike the Stratford bust, 19. 

W. Fairthorne's engraving of the, 59. 

W. H. Worthington's engraving of the, 
62. 

William Page on the Halliwell-Phil- 
lipps copy of the, 55. 

William Smith on the Halliwell-Phil- 
lipps copy of the, 54. 

Wivell on the, 48. 

W. J. Linton's engraving of the, 63. 

Wood-cuts of the, 63, 66. 

W. Sherwin's engraving of the, 60. 
Droeshout, Martin, the faults of his engrav- 
ing, 51. 

The various portraits engraved by 
him, 47. 



INDEX. 



247 



Dryden, his verses on the copy of the 
Chandos portrait sent to him by 
Kneller, 71. 
Dubose, his engraving of the Monument in 

Westminster Abbey, 231. 
Duchange, G., his engraving of the Chan- 
dos portrait, 83. 
Duke of Buckingham, 175. 
Duke of Devonshire, 175, 177. 
Duke of Hamilton, 130, 131. 
Duke of Somerset, 130, 168. 
Duke of York, 172- 
Duke of Devonshire bust, 172. 
Discovery of the, 174, 176. 
Its purchase by the Duke of Devon- 
shire, 175, 176. 
Its resemblance to the Death Mask, 
177. 
Dugdale, his Life, Diary, etc., 22. 
Du Guemier, Lud., his engraving of the 

Chandos portrait, 83. 
Duke's Theatre, the, 172, 173, 175, 176. 
Dulwich College, 68, 72. 
Dulwich Gallery, picture of Ben Jonson in 

the, 102. 
Dunkarton, R., his engraving of the Jansen 

portrait, 131, 136. 
Dunford, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222. 
Dunford portrait, 218. 

C. Turner's mezzotint of, 223. 
Description of the, 222. 
Formerly a Dutch Admiral, 219. 
History of the, 218. 



Dunford portrait, supposed engraving of, in 
Green's Shakespeare and the Em- 
blem Writers, 223. 
W. Holl's engraving of the, 223. 
W. Sharp's engraving of the, 223. 
Diirer, Albrecht, 93, 99. 

T7 ARL of Scarborough, 192. 

— ' Earl of Southampton, 124. 
Earlom, R., his mezzotint of the Jansen 
portrait, 126, 127, 130, 136. 
His mezzotint of the Jansen portrait, 
Ut magus, above the, 133. 
Ear-rings, Englishmen of Shakespeare's 

day wore them, 80. 
Eastcheap, the great fire which destroyed 

it in 1666, 143. 
Edward IV., his tomb opened, 5. 
Edward VI., 179. 

Effigies, ancient, Dr. Schaaffhausen on, ill. 
Effigy of Anne, 1 1 1 . 
Of Cromwell, ill. 
Of James I., ill. 
Of King Edward VI., ill. 
Of King William, ill. 
Of Nelson, in. 
Of Queen Elizabeth, ill. 
Of Queen Mary, 1 11. 
Eginton, F., his engraving of the Stratford 

bust, 38. 
Egyptian mummies, 1 1 1 . 
Elizabeth, Queen, her portrait painted by 
Zucchero, 204. 



248 



INDEX. 



Ellesmere, Earl of, 70, 79. 

Ellesmere, Lord, 145. 

Elze, Karl, 102. 

Every Man in his Humour, 51. 

Examiner, The, on the Stratford portrait, 

161. 
Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations, 

193- 



1 .'AED. James, his engraving of the 

Chandos portrait, 92. 
Faed, John, his painting of the Chandos 

portrait, 91. 
Fairholt, F. W., his drawing of the Strat- 
ford bust, 32. 
His engraving of Stratford bust, 41. 
On the Halliwell-Phillipps copy of the 

Droeshout engraving, 53. 
On the Stratford bust, 32. 
Fairfax, William, his portrait engraved^by 

Droeshout, 47. 
Fairthorne, W.,his"engraving of the Droes- 
hout, 59. 
FeltonjDortrait, 141. 

A. Wivell's engraving of the, 152. 

Boaden on the, 146. 

Cosmo Armstrong's engraving of the, 

151- 

C. Warren's engravings of the, 150. 
First shown to George Steevens, 141. 
H. Wright Smith's engraving of the, 
152. 



Felton portrait, inscription on the back of 

the, 146. 
Is well drawn and colored, 147. 
I. Thomson's engraving of the, 150. 
J. Cochran's engraving of the, 152. 
J. Collyer's engraving of the, 151. 
J. Godfrey's engraving of the, 149. 
J. Neagle's engraving of the, 150. 
John Thurston's drawing of the, 150. 
Josiah Boy dell's copy of the, owned 

by Harris, 147. 
J. Wilson's account of the history of 

the, 142. 
J. Wilson's account of, to George 

Steevens, 143. 
Offered for sale in 1870, 145. 
Owned by Westmacott, 145. 
Richardson's proposal for the publica- 
tion of the engravings of the, 149. 
S. Felton's purchase of the, 142. 
S. Felton sold it to G. Nichol for forty 

guineas, 144. 
The Droeshout engraving probably 

not from the, 5 1 . 
The panel on which it is painted is 

split, 146. 
T. Trotter's engravings of the, 148, 149. 
W. Holl's engraving of the, 151. 
Wivell on the, 147. 
W. T. Fry's engraving of the, 151. 
Felton, S., 141. 

His purchase of the Felton portrait, 

142. 



INDEX. 



249 



Felton, S., sold the Felton portrait to G. 

Nichol for forty guineas, 144. 
Finden, W., his engraving of the Stratford 

bust, 39. 
Fire, the great, which destroyed Eastcheap 

in 1666, 143. 
Firth, G. W. W., has the Boardman minia- 
ture in his possession, 206. 
Fisk, offered five hundred pounds for the 

Boardman miniature, 207. 
Fitzwilliam, Earl, owned Dryden's copy of 

the Chandos portrait, 72. 
Folio, First, 45, 49, 56, 203. 
Fourth, 45, 46. 
Second, 45. 
Third, 45, 46. 
Foster, sold the Talma portrait, 228. 
Fox, Augustus, his engraving of the Droes- 

hout, 62. 
Fox, John, his portrait engraved by Droes- 

hout, 47. 
Freeman, his engraving of the Chandos 

portrait, 89. 
Freeman, S., his engraving of the Chandos 

portrait, 90. 
Friswell, J. Hain, his comparison of the 
Death Mask and the Stratford bust, 
116. 
On the appearance of the left eye of 

the Death Mask, 115. 
On the Challis portrait, 199. 
On the Chandos portrait, 81. 
On the Droeshout engraving, 49. 



Friswell, J. Hain, on the O'Connell por- 
trait, 210. 
On the Stratford bust, 28. 
Repeats Boaden's statement that Ut 
magus is on the Jansen portrait, 134. 
Thinks that the Kesselstadt picture is 
a copy of the Death Mask, 101. 
Fry, his engraving of the Chandos por- 
trait, 87. 
His engraving of the Stratford bust, 
40. 
Fry, W. T., his engraving of the Felton 
portrait, 151. 
His engraving of the Stratford bust, 39. 



/GARDNER, his engraving of the Jansen 

^-* portrait, 136. 

Garrard, Mark, claimed to have painted 

the O'Connell portrait, 210. 
Garrick Club, 175, 176, 177, 178. 
Garrick, David, 202. 

Inaugurated a jubilee at Stratford in 
1769, 158. 

The Roubiliac statue made for, 234. 
Genius of Painting, 232. 
Gilliland portrait, 211. 

Description of the, 211. 

Different from all the other portraits, 
211. 

History of the, 211. 

Owned by Thomas Gilliland,_2H. 

W. Holl's engraving of the, 212. 



32 



250 



INDEX. 



Gilliland, Thomas, owned the Gilliland 

portrait, 211. 
Girtin and Scriven, their engraving of the 

Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo, 

233- 

Globe Theatre, 196. 

Godfrey, J., his engraving of the Felton 
portrait, 149. 

Goldar, his engraving of the Chandos por- 
trait, 85. 

Golden Chamber of the Ursula Church, 1 12. 

Gopsal, 126, 130. 

Graham, John, 208. 

Grave, proposition to open Shakespeare's, I. 

Gravelot, H., his engraving of the Chandos 
portrait, 84. 
His engravings of the Monument in 

Westminster Abbey, 231. 
His engraving of Vertue's plate of the 
Stratford bust, 37. 

Greatbach, G., his engraving of the Chan- 
dos portrait, 91. 
His engraving of the Jansen portrait, 

139- 
His engraving of Stratford bust, 41. 
Great Newport Street, 218. 
Ormond Street, 129, 216. 
Queen Street, 208. 
Green, Henry, his mezzotint of the Zucchero 
portrait, 205. 
Shakespeare and the Etnblem Writers, 
223. 
Grenville, 154. 



Grignion, his engraving of the Stratford 

bust, 38. 
Grosvenor Square, 222. 
Gwennap, his portrait of Shakespeare, sold 

to him by Holder, 222. 



TTACKNEY Road, 221. 

Hair, change of color of, when cut 
off, 105. 
Hairs affixed to the Death Mask, 104, 105. 
Halpin, his engraving of the Monument in 

Westminster Abbey, 231. 
Hammond, 221. 
Hardie, Dr., owned the Hardie portrait, 

213. 
Hardie portrait, 213. 

Description of the, 213. 
Forged by Zincke, 213. 
Inscriptions on the, 213, 214. 
Owned by Dr. Hardie, 213. 
Resembled the Stratford bust, 214. 
Halford, Sir Henry, his account of the ex- 
amination of Charles I.'s body, 8. 
Hall, John, his engravings of the Chandos 
portrait, 85. 
His grave, 2. 
Hall, Dr. John, 50. 
Hall, Susanna, her grave, 2. 
Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O., his copy of the 
Droeshout engraving, 52. 
On Shakespeare's skull, 14. 
On the Droeshout engraving, 50. 



INDEX. 



251 



Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O., on the restoration 
of the Stratford bust, 27. 
On the Stratford bust, 27. 
On the Stratford portrait, 1 60. 
Hamilton, Duke of, 130, 131. 
Hampton Court Palace, 179. 
Hampton Court portrait, 179. 

Arundel Society's photograph of the, 

181. 
Description of the, 180. 
Its history, 179. 

More like ihe Chandos portrait than 
any other, 180. 
Hardiknutian tablet, 145, 
Harding, S., his drawing of the Chandos 
portrait, 86. 
His drawing of the Stratford bust, 38. 
Hare, James, his account of Shakespeare's 

grave, 15. 
Harland, T. W., his engraving of the Hil- 

liard miniature, 186. 
Harris, bought J. Boydell's copy of the 
Felton portrait, 148. 
Owned J. Boydell's copy of the Felton 
portrait, 147. 
Hart, Prof. John S., 113. 
Harvey, W., his drawing of the Chandos 

portrait, 88. 
Heath, his engraving of the Chandos por- 
trait, 88. 
Heliotypes of the Droeshout engraving, 65 . 
Heminge, John, 45. 
Henry VIII., 179. 



Henry VIII., his remains examined, 6, 8. 
Hermetically sealed coffin, Shakespeare 

probably buried in one, 3. 
Hilder, 218. 
Hilliard miniature, 182. 

Agar's engraving of the, 184, 186. 
B. Holl's engraving of the, 186. 
Boaden on the, 184. 
Description of the, 185. 
History of the, 182. 
T. W. Harland's engraving of the, 
186. 
Hilliard, Nicholas, 184. 
Historia Naturalis, 1 09. 
Hobbs, 154. 
Holbein, 180. 
Holborn, 220. 

Holder, Edward, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 
221, 222, 226. 
Dunford purchased the Dunford por- 
trait from, 218. 
Forged the Liddell portrait, 215. 
His account of how he altered the 

Dunford portrait, 220. 
His plan of altering portraits, 218. 
Sold the Dunford portrait to Dunford 
for four pounds ten shillings, 220. 
Holl, B., his engravings of the Chandos 
portrait, 89, 90. 
His engraving of the Hilliard minia- 
ture, 186. 
His engraving of the Monument in 
Westminster Abbey, 231. 



252 



INDEX. 



Holl, B., his engraving of the Shakespeare 

Gallery Alto Relievo, 233. 
Holl, Francis, his engraving of the Strat- 
ford bust, 42. 
Holl, W., his engraving of the Chandos por- 
trait, 89. 
His engraving of the Dunford portrait, 

223. 
His engraving of the Felton portrait, 

151- 
His engraving of the Gilliland portrait, 

212. 
His engraving of the Jennings minia- 
ture, 1 go. 
His engraving of the Roubiliac statue, 

234- 
His engraving of the Stace portrait, 

209. 
His engraving of the Zincke portrait, 

227. 
His engraving of the Zoust portrait, 

203. 
His engraving of the Zucchero portrait, 
205. 
Hollis, his engraving of the Chandos por- 
trait, 90. 
Holy Trinity Church, 2, 21. 
Hopwood, his engraving of the Jansen por- 
trait, 139. 
Houbraken, his engraving of the Chandos 

portrait, 84. 
Howarth, 197, 198. 
Howe, Emmanuel Scroope, 132. 



Howson, John, his portrait engraved by 
Droeshout, 47. 

Hughes, Margaret, 132. 

Humphry, Ozias, his drawing of the Chan- 
dos portrait for Malone, 77. 

Humphry, W., his engraving of the Shake- 
speare Gallery Alto Relievo, 233. 

Hunt, William Oakes, 153, 154, 159, 162. 
Owned the Stratford portrait, 153. 
Presented the Stratford portrait to the 
town of Stratford, 162. 



T MMERZEEL, Levens en Werken der 

Hollandsche Kunstschilders, 123. 
Indentation over the right eyebrow of the 

Death Mask, 113. 
Ingleby, Dr. C. M., his efforts to obtain a 

correct photograph of the Stratford 

portrait, 163. 
His Shakespeare 's Bones, 2. 
In favor of opening Shakespeare's 

grave, 2. 
On the Chandos portrait, 79. 
On the Droeshout engraving, 49. 
On the Stratford bust, 29. 
Inscription on the back of the Death Mask, 

97, 108. 
On the back of the Felton portrait, 146. 
On the Boardman miniature, 206. 
On the fire-proof safe in which the 

Stratford portrait is kept, 163. 
On the Hardie portrait, 213, 214. 



INDEX. 



253 



Inscription on the Talma portrait, 229. 
Under the Stratford bust, 24. 
Under the Winstanley portrait, 225. 
Ireland, Samuel, his drawing of the Droes- 
hout, 61. 
His drawing of the Stratford bust, 38. 
Ireland, W. H., formerly owned the Talma 

portrait, 228. 
Izard, owned the Boardman miniature, 207. 



JAMES I., 83, 180, 185. 
Effigy of, in. 
Vertue's engraving of, 128. 
James, Duke of York, 172. 
Jannsen (Jansen), 122. 
Jannsens (Jansen), 122. 
Jansen, Cornelius, 73, 75, 126, 127, 132. 
His name also spelled Jannsen, Jann- 
sens and Johnson, 122. 
Malone's statement regarding the arri- 
val of, in England, 125. 
Price of his pictures, 1 24. 
The date of his first works in England, 
123. 
Jansen portrait, 122. 

Boaden on John Wilson Croker's copy 

of the, 134. 
Boaden on the, 132. 
Boaden's search for the, 130. 
Compared with the Ashborne portrait, 

169. 
Earlom's mezzotint of the, 130, 136. 



Jansen portrait, Gardner's engraving of the, 
136. 

G. Greatbach's engraving of the, 139. 

Given by the Duke of Hamilton to the 
Duke of Somerset, 130. 

Hopwood's engraving of the, 139. 

H. Robinson's engraving of the, 138. 

In the possession of the Duke of Ham- 
ilton in 181 1, 131. 

John Wilson Croker's copy of the, 134. 

J. R. Jobbins' lithograph of the, 139. 

Lacour's engraving of the, 139. 

More nearly resembles the Death Mask 
than any other, 133. 

Not an authentic picture of Shake- 
speare, 122. 

Not known who painted it, 122. 

Page's engraving of the, 138. 

Photograph of Charles Turner's mezzo- 
tint of the, 138. 

R. Cooper's engraving of Croker's 
copy of the, 137. 

R. Cooper's engraving of the, 137. 

R. Dunkarton's engraving of the, 131, 
136. 

R. Earlom's mezzotint of the, 126. 

R. Page's engraving of the, 137. 

Sometimes called the Somerset, 122. 

The panel on which it is painted is 
split in two places, 133. 

T. Wright's engraving of the, 138. 
Jennens, Charles, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 
132, 134- 



254 



INDEX. 



Jennens, Charles, defence of his King 
Lear, 128. 
His death, 130. 
His edition of King Lear, 126, 127, 

128. 
His house at Gopsal, 126. 
Review of his edition of King Lear, 
127. 
Jennings, H. Constantine, 189. 
Jennings miniature, 189. 
History of the, 189. 
W. Holl's engraving of the, 190. 
Wilson on the, 190. 
Wivell on the, 190. 
Jobbins, J. R., his lithograph of the Jansen 

portrait, 139. 
Johnson, Gerard, 18, 21, 103, 157. 
Johnson (Jansen), 122. 
Jones, Frank, his chromo-lithograph of the 

Chandos portrait, 92. 
Jonson, Ben, 11, 19, 46, 50, 51, 101, 102, 
172, 214. 
His grave examined, 11. 
His lines on the Droeshout engraving, 

46. 
Picture of, in Dulwich Gallery, 102. 
The Kesselstadt picture supposed to 
represent him, 101, 102, 104. 
Jourdan, S., 94, 101. 
Joy, Abby, 197. 
Joy, Benjamin, 196. 
Jubilee at Stratford-upon-Avon, 158. 



TV^ECK, Robert, his purchase of the 

Chandos portrait, 69, 70. 
Kesselstadt picture, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 

100, 101, 102, 104. 

Supposed to represent Ben Jonson, 

101, 102, 104. 
Kettle, 218, 219. 
Kingston, Clements, 166, 168. 

His letter to Wivell, 166. 
King Lear, Charles Jennens' defence of 
his edition of, 128. 
Jennens' edition of, 126. 
Kneller, Sir Godfrey, 67, 71, 180. 

His copy of the Chandos portrait, 67. 
Verses sent by Dryden to, 71. 
Knight, C, his engraving of the Chandos 
portrait, 85. 



T ACOUR, his engraving of the Jansen 
— * portrait, 139. 

Lamb, Charles, said to have fallen on his 
knees before the Talma portrait, and 
to have kissed it, 229. 

Langbaine, Oldy's notes on, on the Chan- 
dos portrait, 73. 

Laurel Street, 210. 

Lawford Church, graves opened at, 3. 

Lawrence, Sir Thomas, 184, 221. 

Lear, King, Charles Jennens' defence of 
his edition of, 128. 

Le Goux, his engraving of the Chandos por- 
trait, 86. 



INDEX. 



255 



Leicester, Lord, 144. 

Lely, 180. 

Lenox, on the Halliwell-Phillipps copy of 

the Droeshout engraving, 57. 
Liddell portrait, 215. 

Owned by Bryant, before it was forged 
by Holder, 216. 

Owned by Thomas Liddell, 215. 

Wivell discovered that Holder forged 
it, 215. 
Liddell, Thomas, 217. 
Lip, upper, length of, in Stratford bust, 33. 
Lincoln's Inn Fields, 172, 176. 
Lines over Shakespeare's grave, 17. 
Linnell, 208. 

Linton, W. J., his engraving of Stratford 
bust, 42. 

His engraving of the Droeshout, 63. 
Little Cambridge Street, 221. 
London and its Environs, 1 29. 
Lord Ellesmere, 145. 
Lord Leicester, 144. 
Lord Lumley, 192, 194. 
Lord Orford, 144. 
Lord Spencer, 124. 
Loring, Gen. Charles G., 197, 198. 

On the Boston Art Museum portrait, 
197. 
Lucas, John, his examination of the body 

of Katharine Parr, 6. 
Lucy, Sir Thomas, 124. 
Lumley Castle, 192, 194. 
Lumley, Lord, 192, 194. 



Lumley portrait, 192. 
Its history, 192. 
Purchased by the Baroness Burdett- 

Coutts, 193. 
Resemblance of, to the Chandos por- 
trait, 194. 
Vincent Brooks' chromo-lithograph of 
the, 195. 
Luther, Martin, 93, 99. 

Mask of, no. 
Lysistratus of Sicyon, 109, no. 



TV If ACBETH, Sir WiUiam D'Avenant's 
-*-*-*■ edition of, 173. 
Mainz, 93. 

Malone, Edmond, 26, 27, 77, 125, 155, 182, 
184, 201. 
Advised that the Stratford bust should 

be painted white, 26. 
His statement regarding the date of 

Jansen's arrrival in England, 125. 
Ozias Humphry's drawing of the Chan- 
dos portrait made for, 77. 
The picture which he believed was by 
Jansen, 125. 
Manchester, 213, 223. 
Marshall's copy of the Droeshout engrav- 
ing. 59- 
Copies of, in Boaden's Inquiry, and 

Wivell's Inquiry, 66. 
Delattre's engraving of, 66. 
H. Adlard's engraving of, 66. 



256 



INDEX. 



Mashall's copy of the Droeshout, H. Rob- 
inson's engraving of, 66. 
The engraving of, in Johnson and 
Steevens' editions of Shakespeare, 
1778, and 1785, 66. 

Martin, D., his engraving of the Roubiliac 
statue, 234. 

Mary, daughter of Edward IV., her tomb 
opened, 5. 
Effigy of, ill. 

Mary of Scotland, Queen, her portrait 
painted by Zucchero, 204. 

Mask, Death, see Death Mask. 

Mask of Luther, no. 

Mask of Tasso, no. 

Masks, art of making, known very early, 
109. 
How they are made, 105. 
Pliny on the art of making, 109. 

Matthews, Jeremiah, his offer for the Strat- 
ford portrait, 162. 

Maurer, J., his engraving of the Monument 
in Westminster Abbey, 230. 

Mayence, 93, 94, 96, 98, 100, 101. 

Measures of the Death Mask and the Strat- 
ford bust, 114. 

Melanchthon, 93, 99. 

Melbourne, 112. 

Memphis, in. 

Merchant of Venice, 163. 

Middle Scotland Yard, 208. 

Midelburg, 124. 

Milton, John, 173. 



Milton, John, search for his remains, 10. 
Monument in Westminster Abbey, 230. 

B. Holl's engraving of the, 231. 

Description of, 230. 

Dubose's engraving of the, 231. 

Halpin's engraving of the, 231. 

H. Gravelot's engravings of the, 231. 

J. Maurer's engraving of the, 230. 

Photographs of not satisfactory, 231. 

Rothwell's engraving of the, 231. 

The head of, somewhat like the Chan- 
dos portrait, 230. 
Monuments, the faces of, made from masks, 

no. 
Miiller, Professor, 94, 98, 100, 104. 

His letter to Ludwig Becker, 98. 
Mummies, Egyptian, in. 
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 197. 



"\TACK, 100, 101. 
■*■ Napoleon I., 118. 

Nash, Rev. Tredway, report of, on examina- 
tion of Katharine Parr's remains, 7. 
Nashe, Thomas, his grave, 2. 
Neagle, J., his engraving of the Felton 
portrait, 150. 
His engraving of the Stratford bust, 38. 
Nebuchadnezzar, in. 
Nelson, effigy of, m. 
New Place, 156, 233. 

New Shakespeare Society, their chromo- 
phototype of the Stratford bust, 44. 



INDEX. 



257 



New Shakespeare Society, their photograv- 

ing of the Droeshout, 66. 
Their phototype of the Stratford bust, 

44. 
New Turnstile, 220. 
Nichol, G., 144, 145. 
Nicol, Nicholl, or Nicholls, his ownership 

of the Chandos portrait, 69, 70. 
Niessen, J., his portrait from the Death 

Mask, 121. 
Photographs of his portrait from the 

Death Mask, 121. 
Norwich, 206, 207. 
Norwich portrait, 207. 
Nose of the Stratford bust, shortness of the, 

33- 



/^V'CONNELL, J., owns the O'Connell 
^S portrait, 210. 
O'Connell, portrait, 2IO. 

Description of the, 210. 

Exhibited in 1884 at the " Shakespeare 
Show," 210. 

Friswell on the, 210. 
Old Green Dragon, 208. 
Old Knowell, the Droeshout engraving 
supposed to represent Shakespeare 
as, 51. 
Opening of Shakespeare's grave, r. 
Orford, Lord, 144. 
Otis, Mrs. Harrison Gray, 197. 
Otway, John, 69. 



Owen, Professor, 112, 174, 176. 
Oxford Street, 216. 



T)AGE, R., his engravings of the Jansen 

-*• portrait, 137, 138. 

Page's bust, crayon drawing of, 120. 

Photographs of, 120. 
Page, William, always had the greatest faith 
in the Death Mask, 119. 
His bust from the Death Mask, 120. 
His portrait from the Death Mask, 121. 
Made masks from the Death Mask, 

119. 
On the appearance of the left eye of 

the Death Mask, 115. 
On the Chandos portrait, 78. 
On the Halliwell-Phillipps copy of the 

Droeshout engraving, 55. 
On the indentation over the right eye- 
brow of the Death Mask, 113. 
On the similarity of the measures of 
the Death Mask and the Stratford 
bust, 114. 
On the Stratford bust, 30. 
Visited Darmstadt, 1 19. 
Pall Mall, 232. 
Parr, Katharine, Queen to Henry VIII., 

her tomb examined, 6. 
Parr, N., his engraving of the Chandos por- 
trait, 86. 
Parry, James, 218. 
Paxton, Sir Joseph, ij6. 



33 



258 



INDEX. 



Photograph of the Boston Art Museum por- 
trait, 197, 198. 
Of Charles Turner's mezzotint of the 

Jansen portrait, 138. 
Of Shakespeare, 4, 19. 
Of the Death Mask, 121. 
Photographs of the Droeshout engraving, 
64, 65. 
Of Monument in Westminster Abbey 

not satisfactory, 231. 
Of the Droeshout engraving not gen- 
erally successful, 64. 
Of the Stratford bust, 42, 43, 44. 
Of the Stratford portrait, 156, 163, 164. 
Photograving of the Droeshout engraving, 

66. 
Photo-lithographic copies of the Droeshout 

engraving, 64, 65. 
Photo-zincographic copy of the Droeshout 

engraving, 64. 
Picart, C, his engraving of the Droeshout, 

62. 
Piercy, W. F. Zincke originally bought the 

Winstanley portrait from, 225. 
Pliny, on the art of making masks, 109. 
Pope, Alexander, 185. 
Preston, his photograph of the Chandos 

portrait, 92. 
Prince Rupert, his reputed ownership of 
the Jansen portrait, 131. 



QUEEN Anne, effigy of, III. 
Queen Elizabeth, effigy of, III. 



Queen Mary, effigy of, III. 
Queen Mary of Scotland, her portrait 
painted by Zucchero, 204. 

"D ABONE, John, his copy of the Strat- 

•*■*■ ford portrait, 156. 

Radclyffe, E., his engraving of the Strat- 
ford bust, 41. 

Raphael, 180. 

His tomb examined, 10. 

Raye, Sir John Lister, paid four hundred 
pounds for the Zoust portrait, 203. 

Reading, Burnet, his engraving of the 
Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo, 

233- 

Restoration of the Stratford bust by Collins, 

26. 
Review, the Critical, 127, 128. 
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 202. 

His opinion of the Chandos portrait, 

75- 
Made a copy of the Chandos portrait, 
72. 

Ribet, cleaned the Talma portrait and after- 
wards restored it, 228. 

Richardson, William, 141, 148. 

His proposals for the publication of 
engravings of the Felton portrait, 
148. 

Rippon, George, 193. 

Rivers, his engraving of the Droeshout, 61 - 

Robinson, E. W., his drawing of the Strat- 
ford bust, 42. 



INDEX. 



259 



Hobinson, H., his engraving of Marshall's 
copy of the Droeshout, 66. 
His engraving of the Chandos portrait, 

89. 
His engraving of the Droeshout, 63. 
His engraving of the Jansen portrait, 

138. 
His engraving of the Stratford bust, 42. 
Rockwood, his photograph of the Ward 

statue, 235. 
Rodd, H., on Richard Burbage's portrait 
at Dulwich College, 72. 
On the Chandos portrait, 76. 
Rohrbach, P., his lithograph of the Chandos 

portrait, 92. 
Hothwell, his engraving of the Monument 

in Westminster Abbey, 231. 
.Roubiliac, Lewis Francis, 234. 
Roubiliac statue, 234. 

Description of the, 234. 
D. Martin's engraving of the, 234. 
W. Holl's engraving of the, 234. 
The face somewhat like the Chandos 
portrait, 234. 
Rowe's edition of Shakespeare, contained 
engraving of the Stratford bust, 36. 
.Rupert, Prince, his reputed ownership of 

the Jansen portrait, 131. 
Ruperta, 131. 



=0 ANDRART, Academics Pictures No- 
"^ bilis, 123. 



Sawyer, R., his engraving of the Droeshout, 

61. 
Scarborough, Earl of, 192. 
Schaaffhausen, Dr. Hermann, 95. 

On ancient effigies, ill. 
Scharf, George, on the Chandos portrait, 

75, 80. 
Schiller, his tomb opened, 9. 
Schon, Martin, 93, 99. 
Scotland Yard, Middle, 208. 
Scott, Sir Walter, his large upper lip, 35. 

On the Stratford bust, 35. 
Scott, T. D., his drawing of the Chandos 
portrait, 91. 

His drawing of the Stratford bust, 41. 
Scriven, E., his engraving of the Chandos 
portrait, 88, 90. 

His engraving of the Stratford bust, 40. 
Seldon, John, 227. 
Shakespeare Gallery, 232. 
Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo, 232. 

B. Holl's engraving of the, 233. 

B. Smith's engraving of the, 233. 

Burnet Reading's engraving of the, 

233- 
Designed and executed by J. Banks, 

232. 
Girtin and Scriven's engraving of the, 

233- 
James Stow's engraving of the, 233. 
S. Rawle's engraving of the, 233. 
The face of the, resembles George 

Washington, 233. 



260 



INDEX. 



Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo, Vital- 
ba's engraving of the, 233. 
W. Humphry's engraving of the, 233. 

Shakespeare's grave, 2. 

Shakespeare Show, 191, 210. 

Sharp, W., his engraving of the Dunford 
portrait, 223. 

Sherburn Castle, 124. 

Sherwin, W., his engraving of the Droes- 
hout, 60. 

Shylock, the Chandos portrait supposed to 
represent Shakespeare as, 82. 

Simon, I., his mezzotint of the Zoust por- 
trait, 201. 

Skull of Shakespeare, the great good it 
would accomplish, 13. 

Skulls of saints, preserved in portrait-busts 
in Christian churches, m. 

Smirke, Robert, his picture of Stratford 
bust, 39. 

Smith, B., his engraving of the Shake- 
speare Gallery Alto Relievo, 233. 

Smith, Edward, his engraving of the Chan- 
dos portrait, 89. 

Smith, H. Wright, his engraving of the Fel- 
ton portrait, 152. 

Smith, W., 219. 

Smith, William, on the Halliwell-Phillipps 
copy of the Droeshout engraving, 54. 

Soest (Zoust), 201. 

Somerset, Duchess of, 132. 

Somerset, Duke of, 130, 168. 

Somerset portrait, the, 122. 



Somerville, 182, 185. 

Somerville, Lord, 183. 

Sonrel, his photographs of the Boston Art 

Museum portrait, 197, 198. 
Southampton, Earl of, 124. 
Southampton family, 189. 
South Kensington, 191. 
Spelman, Henry, 227. 
Spencer, Lord, 124. 
Spode, 173. 

Spurzheim, Dr., on the Stratford bust, 34- 
Stace, Machell, 208, 209. 
Stace portrait, 208. 

Description of the, 208. 
History of the, 208. 
Robert Cooper's engraving of the, 209.. 
W. Holl's engraving of the, 209. 
Starling, his engraving of the Stratford bust„ 

41. 
Steevens, George, 141, 143, 144, 145, 147, 
148, 149. 
Believed that the Felton portrait was. 
the original of the Droeshout en- 
graving, 51. 
On the Chandos portrait, 77. 
On the Droeshout engraving, 48. 
Owned a copy of the Felton portrait: 
painted by J. Boy dell, 147. 
St. Erasmus, Chapel of, no. 
St. George's Chapel, Windsor, 5. 
St. Luke's Church, 204. 
Storm, G. F., his engraving of the Ash- 
borne portrait, 170. 



INDEX. 



26t 



Stow, James, his engraving of the Shake- 
speare Gallery Alto Relievo, 233. 
Stratford bust, 21, 116, 119, 120, 178, 200. 

A. Birrell's engraving of the, 38. 

A stone pen originally in the right 
hand of the, 35. 

Benjamin West on the, 34. 

Boaden on the, 29. 

Comparison of, with the Death Mask, 
116. 

Condition of in 181 4, 33. 

Description of the, 24. 

Difference in appearance of, when 
colored, 27. 

Disappointing to most people, 35. 

Dr. C. M. Ingleby on the, 29. 

Dr. Spurzheim on the, 34. 

E. Radclyffe's engraving of the, 41. 

Engraving of, in Rowe's edition of 
Shakespeare, 36. 

E. Scriven's engraving of the, 40. 

E. W. Robinson's drawing of the, 42. 

F. Eginton's engraving of the, 38. 
Forefinger and thumb broken off the, 26. 
Francis Holl's engraving of the, 42. 
Friswell on the, 28. 

From a cast after death, 33. 
Fry's engraving of the, 40. 
F. W. Fairholt on the, 32. 

F. W. Fairholt's engraving of the, 41. 
George Bullock made a cast of the, in 

1814, 33- 

G. Vertue's engraving of the, 37. 



Stratford bust, G. Greatbach's engraving of 

the, 41. 
Grignion's engraving of, 38. 
Had become dilapidated in 1749, 25 . 
H. Gravelot's engraving of the, 37. 
H. Robinson's engraving of the, 42. 
Inscription under the, 24. 
I. S. Agar's engraving of the, 40. 
Its appearance different when viewed 

from various positions, 36. 
J. Boaden's drawing of the, 40. 
J. Boydell's engraving of the, 38. 
J. Neagle's engraving of the, 38. 
John Bell thought it was from a mask, 

33- 
J. Thurston's drawing of the, 39. 
Length of upper lip of the, 33. 
Malone advised that it should be 

painted white, 26. 
New Shakespeare Society's chromo- 

phototype of the, 44. 
New Shakespeare Society's phototype 

of the, 44. 
Photographs of the, 42, 44. 
Poorness of the eyes of the, 33. 
Possesses no claims to be regarded as- 

a work of art, 36. 
Probably erected by Shakespeare's 

family shortly after his death, 35. 
R. Ashby's engraving of the, 39. 
R. B. Wheler stated that there was no 

date or inscription on the back of 

the, 34. 



262 



INDEX. 



Stratford bust, resemblance of the Burn 

portrait to the, 191. 
Resemblance of the moustache of the 

Boardman miniature to that of the, 

207. 
Resemblance of the Stratford portrait 

to the, 157, 158, 161. 
Restoration of the, 26. 
Robert Smirke's picture of the, 39. 
Rudely cut, 18, 36. 
Samuel Ireland's engraving of the, 38. 
Sculptured from a mask, 103. 
S. Harding's drawing of the, 38. 
Shortness of nose of the, 33. 
Similarity of the measures of, to the 

Death Mask, 115. 
Sir Francis Chantrey thought it was 

from a mask, 33. 
Starling's engraving of the, 41. 
T. A. Dean's engraving of the, 40. 
T. D. Scott's drawing of the, 41. 
The Droeshout engraving as well au- 
thenticated as the, 50. 
The Hardie portrait resembles the, 

213. 
The white paint on the, removed by 

Collins, 26. 
Thrupp's photographs of the, 43. 
W. Finden's engraving of the, 39. 
Wheler's drawing of the, 38. 
William Page on the, 30. 
William Ward's engraving of the, 39. 
Wivell on the, 30. 



Stratford bust, Wivell's drawing of the, 40. 

W. J. Linton's engraving of the, 42. 

W. T. Fry's engraving of the, 39. 

W. Wallis' engraving of the, 41. 
Stratford Church, 155. 
Stratford portrait, 153. 

Charles Wright on the, 160. 

Cleaned by Simon Collins, 153. 

Discovery of the, 153. 

Discovery of the, excited great interest, 

157- 
History of the, as given in the circular 

given to visitors to Collins' studio, 

154. 
Inscription on the fire-proof case in 

which it is kept, 163. 
Its great resemblance to the Stratford 

bust, 157, 158, 161. 
J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps on the, 160. 
John Rabone's copy of the, 156. 
Not the work of an artist of much 

ability, 162. 
Photographed after it was cleaned, 156. 
Photographs of the, 156. 
Presented to the town of Stratford by 

W. O. Hunt, 162. 
Purchased at a sale at the Clopton 

House, 153. 
Restored, 154. 
The Examiner on the, 161. 
The face covered with beard before it 

was cleaned by Simon Collins, 154. 



INDEX. 



263 



Stratford portrait, the majority of writers 
have thought it was from the Strat- 
ford bust, 158. 
The offer of Jeremiah Matthews to 

purchase it, 162. 
Visit of the Birmingham Archaeologi- 
cal Association to see the, 156. 
Stratford-upon-Avon, 2, 20, 153, 154, 156, 
158, 162, 164, 207, 233. 
Tercentenary celebration of Shake- 
speare's birth at, 112. 
The Death Mask exhibited at, in 1864, 
112. 
Streatham Street, 208. 
Surgeons, College of, 174, 176. 
Swaine, J., his engraving of the Droeshout, 

61. 
Sydenham, 175, 176. 



•*T I ABLET, Hardiknutian, 145. 
"*" Talma, bought the Talma portrait 
for one thousand francs, 229. 
Talma portrait, 228. 

Bought by Allen, 228. 
Charles Lamb said to have fallen on 
his knees before it, and to have 
kissed it, 229. 
Cleaned by Ribet, 228. 
Forged by W. F. Zincke, 228. 
Formerly owned by W. H. Ireland, 

228. 
History of the, 228. 



Talma portrait, inscription on the, 229. 

Originally represented an old lady, 228. 
Sold after Talma's death for three 

thousand one hundred francs, 229. 
Sold by Foster, 228. 
Tasso, mask of, 1 10. 
Taylor, John, 70. 
Taylor, Joseph, 68, 70. 
Teddington, 201. 
Tercentenary of Shakespeare's birth, 112, 

193, 207. 
Theatre, Globe, 196. 
Thompson, John, his engraving of the 

Chandos portrait, 88. 
Thomson, I., his engraving of the Felton 

portrait, 150. 
Thorns, W. J., suggested that the Death 

Mask represented Cervantes, u8. 
Three Pigeons, 208. 
Thrupp, his photographs of the Stratford 

bust, 43. 
Thurston, his drawing of the Droeshout, 61. 
Thurston, John, his drawing of the Felton 

portrait, 150. 
Thurston, J., his drawing of the Stratford 

bust, 39. 
Tercentenary of Shakespeare's birth, 112, 

193, 207. 
Times, The, 160. 
Timmins, Samuel, 168, 233. 
Tomkins, P. W., his engraving of the 

Chandos portrait, 87. 



264 



INDEX. 



Tonson, Jacob, copy of the Chandos por- 
trait on the publications of, 85. 

Triphook, 202. 

Trotter, T., his engravings of the Felton 
portrait, 149. 

Tuffing, 208. 

Turner, Charles, his mezzotint of the Dun- 
ford portrait, 223. 
His mezzotint of the Jansen portrait, 

137- 
Twickenham, 201. 



T T RSULA, Church, Golden Chamber 
^"^ of the, 112. 

Ut magus, above Earlom's mezzotint of the 
Jansen portrait, 133. 



T 7ANDER Gucht, 84, 86, 130. 
* G., his engraving of the Chandos 
portrait, 84, 86. 
His drawing of the Chandos portrait, 
130. 
Vander Gucht, M., his engraving of the 

Chandos portrait, 82. 
Vansomer, Paul, 75, 224. 
Vault, Shakespeare buried in a, 16. 
Vertue, G., his engraving of the Chandos 
portrait, 84. 
His engraving of James I., 128. 
His engraving of the Stratford bust, 37. 
Vitalba, his engraving of the Shakespeare 
Gallery Alto Relievo, 233. 



Von Brandenburg, Albrecht, 93, 99. 
Von Kesselstadt, Francis, 93, 94, 95, 96, 
97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104. 
His collection of pictures, 93. 



T T 7AAGEN, Dr., 72, 187. 
" v His remarks on Dryden's copy of 
the Chandos portrait, 72. 
Wallis, W., his engraving of the Stratford 

bust, 41. 
Walpole, 124, 125. 
Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting, 123. 
Ward, J. Q. A., his statue, 235. 
Ward statue, 235. 

Description of the, 235. 
Davis' engraving of the, 235. 
Rockwood's photograph of the, 235. 
Ward, William, his engraving of Stratford 

bust, 39. 
Warren, C, his engravings of the Felton 

portrait, 150. 
Warwick Castle, 187. 
Warwick portrait, 187. 

Description of the, 187. 
History of unknown, 187. 
Washington, George, the face of the Shake- 
speare Gallery Alto Relievo resem- 
bles, 233. 
Waters, Ralph, 193. 
Webb, 189. 

West, Benjamin, 34, 180, 221. 
On the Stratford bust, 34. 



INDEX. 



265 



Westmacott, owned the Felton portrait, 145. 
Westminster Abbey, 1 10. 

Description of the Monumentjn,"230. 
West Smithfield, 199. 
Wheler, R. B., 155. 

His drawing of the Stratford bust, 38. 
Stated that there was no date or in- 
scription on the back of the Strat- 
ford bust, 34. 
William, effigy of, III. 
William III., 180. 
William IV., 179. 
Wilson, J., 142, 143, 144. 

His account of the history of the Eel- 
ton portrait, 142. 
On the Jennings miniature, 190. 
The account he gave Steevens of the 
Felton portrait, 143. 
Windsor, St. George's Chapel, 5. 
Winstanley portrait, 224. 
Description of the, 224. 
Forged by W. F. Zincke, 225. 
History of the, 224. 
Inscription under the, 225. 
Winstanley, Thomas, 224, 225. 
Wivell, Abraham, 30, 40, 88, 89, 131, 133, 
146, 147, 152, 155, 190, 201, 202, 
203, 213, 217, 218, 219, 227. 
Applied to Holder for information con- 
cerning the Dunford portrait, 219. 
Ascertained that the Dunford portrait 
was a forgery by Edward Holder, 
218. 



Wivell, Abraham, discovered that the Har- 

die portrait was forged by Zincke,2 13. 

Found J. Boydell's copy of the Felton 

portrait, 147. 
His drawing of the Chandos portrait, 

88, 89. 
His drawing of the Stratford bust, 40. 
His engraving of the Felton portrait, 

152. 
His statement concerning the panel 
on which the Jansen portrait is 
painted, 133. 
His statement that Ut magus is not 

on the Jansen portrait, 133. 
His visit to Samuel Woodburn, 131. 
On the Droeshout engraving, 48. 
On the Felton portrait, 147. 
On the Jennings miniature, 190. 
On the Stratford bust, 30. 
Purchased the Zincke portrait, 227. 
Wolsey, Cardinal, 179. 
Woodburn, 130, 13 1, 132. 

His purchase of the Jansen portrait for 

the Duke of Hamilton, 130, 131. 

Wood-cuts of the Droeshout engraving, 66. 

Wornum, Ralph N., his edition of Wal- 

pole's Anecdotes of Painting, 123. 

Worthington, W. H., his engraving of the 

Droeshout, 62. 
Wright, Charles, 159, 160. 

On the Stratford portrait, 160. 
Wright, T., his engraving of the Jansen 
portrait, 138. 



34 



266 



INDEX. 



Wright, T., his ownership of the Zoust por- 
trait, 201. 
Wriothesley, Elizabeth, 124. 



7INCKE portrait, 226. 
*-* Description of the, 226. 

Purchased by Wivell, 227. 

W. Holl's engraving of the, 227. 
Zincke, W. F., 213, 220, 225, 226, 227, 
228. 

Forged the Hardie portrait, 213. 

Forged the Talma portrait, 228. 

Forged the Winstanley portrait, 225. 

Painted the Zincke portrait, 227. 
Zoust, his earliest picture in England, 201. 
Zoust portrait, 201. 

Description of the, 202. 

I. Simon's mezzotint of the, 201. 

Lionel Booth has a copy of the, 203. 

Owned by T. Wright, 201. 



Zoust portrait, Sir John Lister Raye paid 
four hundred pounds for the, 203. 

W. Holl's engraving of the, 203. 
Zuccaro, Federigo, (Zucchero,) 196. 
Zucchero, 197, 198, 204, 205. 

Compelled to leave England, 204. 

Painted portraits of Queen Elizabeth 
and Queen Mary, 204. 

The Boston Art Museum portrait could 
not have been painted by, if it re- 
presents Shakespeare, 198. 
Zucchero portrait, 204. 

Could not have been painted by Zuc- 
chero, if it represents Shakespeare, 
204. 

Description of the, 205. 

Henry Green's mezzotint of the, 205. 

The eyes very singular, 205. 

Thought by Boaden to resemble Tor- 
quato Tasso, 205. 

W. Holl's engraving of the, 205. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 156 779 2 






